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. Morris 606 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Wolf 605 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 2000
    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.
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
    2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 686 (1986)
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
    “[E]very criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    *431 Every criminal defendant has a due process 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. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
    See Richards III, -96 (Minn.1992).
  • State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    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. Widell 530 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Widell 530 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    “[T]he imposition of sanctions for violations of discovery rules and orders is a matter particularly suited to the judgment and discretion of the trial court.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)
  • Bixler v. State 582 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1988
    2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986); , 191 (Minn.1992).