DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scott, 493 N.W.2d 546.

45 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Since Paschal did not present a pretext argument to the district court, Paschal cannot prevail on her Batson challenge “unless the record on appeal clearly establishes as a matter of law that the prosecutor’s neutral explanation was pretextual and that the striking of the juror was racially motivated.”
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
    e whether the defendant established a prima facie case of the discriminatory use of a peremptory strike is moot.” ); (declining to address whether a prima facie showing had been made when the district court essentially began its Batson analysis at step two and neither party petitioned for review of that ruling ); State v. Scott, 8 (“Because the trial court ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the question whether the defendant made a prima facie showing is moot.”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    But because the district court continued the Batson analysis and “ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the question whether [Mattox] made a prima facie showing is moot.”
  • State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Diggins 836 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
    154 n. 2 (Minn.2002) ("The misrepresentation in the affidavit chiefly concerned appellant’s alleged confession of the murder to acquaintances.”); (”[T]he admission of evidence of his separately-tried and nontestifying codefendant’s extrajudicial confession to a mutual acquaintance in defendant’s presence that defendant and he killed Yungk violated defendant’s sixth amendment right of confrontation.” (emphasis added)); State v. Zaccardi, 280 Min
  • Scott v. State 788 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2010
  • Scott v. State 788 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2010
    The evidence underlying Scott’s conviction can be found in our opinion affirming his conviction on direct appeal, and will be repeated in this opinion only as necessary to resolve the issues raised in this appeal.
  • Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
  • Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
    James Scott was convicted of first-degree murder for his involvement in Yungk's murder in a separate trial held before Gassler’
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
    eding Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 , 111 S.Ct.
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Reiners 664 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
    1859 (plurality *203 opinion); (noting whether prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent is essentially a factual determination that the district court makes).
  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Reiners 644 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
    (citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
    1712 (holding that a prosecutor may exercise a peremptory challenge “ ‘for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome’ of the case to be tried”) (citation omitted); (upholding the use of a peremptory strike on a potential juror who answered, “probably, yeah,” when asked whether she could follow the judge’s instruction).
  • State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
    1712 (holding that a prosecutor may exercise a peremptory challenge “ ‘for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome’ of the case to be tried”) (citation omitted); (upholding the use of a peremptory strike on a potential juror who answered, “probably, yeah,” when asked whether she could follow the judge’s instruction).
  • Gassler v. State 590 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1999
  • Gassler v. State 590 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
    (citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
  • State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
    1859, 1865 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991)
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Weatherspoon 514 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Weatherspoon 514 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    see also United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443, 457 (9th Cir.1987) (prospective juror’s brother’s robbery conviction sufficiently race-neutral), cert.
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
    James Scott was convicted of the first-degree murder of Dale Yungk in a prior separate trial from appellant’
  • State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992
  • State v. McRae 494 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1992