green
Positive treatment
Issue: ineffective assistance of counsel claimMN ↗
Issue: accomplice instructionMN ↗
Issue: accomplice corroboration instructionMN ↗
Issue: accomplice testimony instructionMN ↗
Quoted verbatim 3×
39.2 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2014–2015 ·
…bears the burden of proof on that claim.
at p. 463
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the defendant's claims about his counsel's investigation and witness contacts require consideration of facts not in the trial record. accordingly, we deny those claims without prejudice to jackson's right to raise them in a postconviction proceeding.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont
jackson's claims about his counsel's investigation and witness contacts require consideration of facts not in the 13 trial record. accordingly, we deny those claims without prejudice to jackson's right to raise them in a postconviction proceeding.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards
jackson's claims about his counsel's investigation and witness contacts require consideration of facts not in the trial record. accordingly, we deny those claims without prejudice to jackson's right to raise them in a postconviction proceeding.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne
“An appellant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel bears the burden of proof on that claim.” State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 463 (Minn. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Dragos Valentine Bogza
State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Minn. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota
An appellant seeking to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “bears the burden of proof on that claim.” State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 463 (Minn. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota
State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 463 (Minn. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Dario Jothzan Abla-Salmeron
Evid. 403. “[G]ratuitous testimony about a defendant’s gang membership or bad character may be unduly prejudicial.” State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 463 (Minn. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young
A person seeking to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “bears the burden of proof on that claim.” State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 463 (Minn. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes
State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Minn. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza
A person alleging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “bears the burden of proof on that claim.” State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 463 (Minn. 2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr.
Accordingly, the district court’s failure to give the accomplice-testimony instruction did not affect Matlock’s substantial rights. 2 The state argues that “it is also relevant that the jury was properly instructed on evaluating witness credibility.” See State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn. 2007) (noting that an “adequate general instruction on the credibility of witnesses” may mitigate the prejudicial effect of the district court’s failure to give an accomplice-testimony instruction).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Patterson
“Evidence should not be admitted if it is irrelevant or if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the potential of the evidence to prejudice the jury.” State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 462-63 (Minn.2007). “[W]here gang evidence is relevant as to motive, it may be admitted.” State v. Buckingham, 772 N.W.2d 64, 73 (Minn.2009) (citing State v. Ferguson, 581 N.W.2d 824, 834-35 (Minn.1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holt v. State
(2×)
State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn.2007) (citing State v. Gail, 713 N.W.2d 851, 864 (Minn.2006), and State v. Lee, 683 N.W.2d 309, 317 (Minn.2004)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pendleton
State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Minn.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jackson
(2×)
State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn.2007); see also State v. Gail, 713 N.W.2d 851, 864-65 (Minn.2006); Lee, 683 N.W.2d at 316-17 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rodriguez
In State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn.2007), our supreme court indicated that it had previously applied the "harmless-error” standard in State v. Lee, 683 N.W.2d at 316 , without a discussion of whether that was the appropriate standard of review.
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Commitment of Johnson
See State v. Jackson , 726 N.W.2d 454 , 463 (Minn. 2007) (denying ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that required consideration of facts that were not in the record).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta
See State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454 , 460–61 (Minn. 2007) (holding that murder was reasonably foreseeable when the defendant attempted to rob a store with an assault rifle and a person he knew was “crazy enough” to do anything); Pierson, 530 N.W.2d at 789 (stating that “evidence indicating [that] the victim was murdered during the commission of an aggravated robbery is a significant factor [that] the jury may consider in determining foreseeability”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her
See State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454 , 457–58, 460–61 (Minn. 2007) (holding that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction of murder charged under section 609.05, subdivision 2, where “[defendant], as an accomplice to the attempted robbery, was aware of the basic details of the plan to use force or to threaten the use of force” and knew that accomplice was armed).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz
See State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 463 (Minn. 2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Johnson
See State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Minn.2007) (stating that “factors such as defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, defendant’s close association with the principal before and after the crime, defendant’s lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and defendant’s flight from the scene of the crime” may reasonably support a conviction of the defendant as an accomplice (quotation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft
See, e.g., State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454 , 460–61 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of aiding-and-abetting first-degree murder while attempting to commit aggravated robbery, based on evidence that the defendant, “as an accomplice . . ., was aware of the basic details of the plan to use force or to threaten the use of force”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles BALL, by Diana MANCINO, Respondent,
v.
PEAR ONE, INC./Craig REBERS, and Uninsured, Relator, and Special Compensation Fund
v.
PEAR ONE, INC./Craig REBERS, and Uninsured, Relator, and Special Compensation Fund
A06-1980.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan 24, 2007.
Joseph J. Dudley, Jr., Dudley and Smith, St. Paul, MN, for Relator., Lorelie M. Hoyer, St. Paul, MN, for Special Compensation Fund., Todd J. Thun, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents.
S.
Published
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals filed September 18, 2006, be, and the same is, affirmed without opinion. See Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Minn.1982) (explaining that, “[sjummary affirmances have no prece-dential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view,” doing no more than establishing the law of the case). We further conclude that relator has not overcome the presumption that Minn.Stat. § 176.183 (2004) is constitutional.
Respondent is awarded $1,200 in attorney fees.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Lorie S. Gildea Associate Justice