Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Blasus, 445 N.W.2d 535.

64 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Frank James Bigbear Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Frank James Bigbear Minn. 2024
at *5–6 () (omission in original).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Chris Marquis McMorris, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In State v. Blasus, the supreme court analyzed a claim of newly discovered evidence and determined that the evidence was “merely a different opinion from a different expert” and that “[g]enerally expert testimony does not constitute newly discovered evidence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Generally expert testimony does not constitute newly discovered evidence justifying a new trial.” d 535, 543 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Moreover, we have held that "generally, expert testimony does not constitute newly discovered evidence justifying a new trial” because "if discovery of a tenth expert is new evidence warranting a new trial, no verdict would ever be final.”
State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Koppi, d at 364 (ruling that “conflicting nature of the evidence” and seriousness of the jury instruction error required reversal of criminal conviction); (stating that “[wjhere error may have prejudiced a close factual case, this court will order a new trial, even if the evidence is otherwise sufficient to support the verdict.”).
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
See, (“Where error may have prejudiced a close factual case, this court will order a new trial, even if the evidence is otherwise sufficient to support the verdict.”); State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 120 , (holding that where an error “might be expected to substantially prejudic
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
Further, prosecutors have a duty to “seek justice, not merely to convict.” (quoting ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, Standard 1.1(c)).
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Noble 669 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Noble 669 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Krosch 642 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2002
State v. Krosch 642 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
“The refusal to give a requested jury instruction lies within the discretion of the trial court and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.” (citation omitted).
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-41 (Minn.1989) (finding that a new trial must be ordered where error may have prejudiced a close factual case).
State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
“The refusal to give a requested jury instruction lies within the discretion of the trial court and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.”
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Nunn 561 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1997
State v. Nunn 561 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1997
(holding that test for whether erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence was harmless is whether there is any reasonable doubt that result would have been different if evidence had been excluded).
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Holmberg 527 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Holmberg 527 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Persitz 518 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1994
State v. Persitz 518 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1994
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
The test for whether evidence was erroneously admitted is “whether there is any reasonable doubt the result would have been different if the evidence had not been admitted.” -20 (Minn.1991) ().
State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(party is entitled to instruction on its theory of the case if there is evidence to support it and its substance is not already contained in court’s instructions).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by