DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187.

170 citing documents.

  • State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
  • Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
    Under our law, a defendant may be entitled to a reversal of his conviction and a new trial if the improper admission of evidence at trial “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” (citation omitted); (“[E]very criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness....
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
    2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984); (citing U.S. Const, amend.
  • State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Due process requires that every defendant be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
  • State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
  • Heino v. One 2003 Cadillac, MN License No. KFR615, VIN: 1G6KS54Y83U131208 762 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Heino v. One 2003 Cadillac, MN License No. KFR615, VIN: 1G6KS54Y83U131208 762 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
    to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” ().
  • State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Polsfuss 720 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Polsfuss 720 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
    Appellant’s third claim is that the district court abused its discretion by *510 three evidentiary rulings that excluded defense evidence.- Every criminal defendant has a right to fundamental fairness and to be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
    Batsell v. United States, 403 F.2d 395, 401 (8th Cir.1968).
  • State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “[Ejvery criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
    Due process requires that every defendant be “ ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
    Under the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, “every criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting Cal *713 ifornia v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Harmless-Error Analysis The state concedes that a criminal defendant must be given “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
    2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)); (same).
  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    A criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
    A criminal defendant must be treated with fundamental fairness and “ ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Tovar 605 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Tovar 605 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2000
    We have stated that a “criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.