grounds claim in Minnesota

2025Cf. State v. Rodriguez, 505 N.W.2d 373, 376 (Minn. App. 1993) (“An objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993).

2016“An objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge.” State v. Rodriguez¸ 505 N.W.2d 373, 376 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993).

2023But a direct appeal is “an inappropriate means of challenging acceptance of a guilty plea [if] the grounds for the challenge go outside the record on appeal.” State v. Newcombe, 412 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 1987).

2023But a direct appeal is “an inappropriate means of challenging acceptance of a guilty plea [if] the grounds for the challenge go outside the record on appeal.” State v. Newcombe, 412 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 1987).

2016See Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 316 (reversing the court of appeals on the grounds that its analysis failed to “comport with the exclusive definition” of employment misconduct in the statute).

2016See Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 316 (reversing the court of appeals on the grounds that its analysis failed to “comport with the exclusive definition” of employment misconduct in the statute).

2016See State v. Anyanwu, 681 N.W.2d 411, 413 (Minn. App. 2004) (“[A] defendant has a right to challenge his guilty plea on direct appeal even though he has not moved to withdraw the guilty plea in the district court.”); State v. Newcombe, 412 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn. App. 1987) (indicating that a defendant is not permitted to challenge guilty plea on direct appeal “only where the grounds for the challenge go outside the record on appeal”), review denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 1987).

2016See id. at 622-23 (declining to extend the grounds for challenging a juror based on implied bias).

2015We disagreed, holding that “Rule 26.02 provides the exclusive grounds to challenge for implied bias,” and that the relationship between the juror and the company was not one covered by Rule 26.02. 7 Id. at 318 ; see also Williams, 764 N.W.2d at 28 (declining to extend implied bias to a juror who may have lied about another juror’s racist remarks); 8 Holt v. State, 772 N.W.2d 470, 477 (Minn.2009) (declining to extend the doctrine of implied bias where a juror’s home was burgled, but there was no connection between the defendant and the attempted burglary, and the case involved a different type

2015We disagreed, holding that “Rule 26.02 provides the exclusive grounds to challenge for implied bias,” and that the relationship between the juror and the company was not one covered by Rule 26.02. 7 Id. at 318 ; see also Williams, 764 N.W.2d at 28 (declining to extend implied bias to a juror who may have lied about another juror’s racist remarks); 8 Holt v. State, 772 N.W.2d 470, 477 (Minn.2009) (declining to extend the doctrine of implied bias where a juror’s home was burgled, but there was no connection between the defendant and the attempted burglary, and the case involved a different type

2014The anti- 9 SLAPP law allows a party to bring a motion to “dispose of a judicial claim on the grounds that the claim materially relates to an act of the moving party that involves public participation.” Minn. Stat. § 554.02 , subd. 1. “[T]he first step in evaluating an anti-SLAPP motion is to determine whether the party seeking dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statutes has made a threshold showing that the underlying claim materially relates to an act of the moving party that involves public participation.” Leiendecker, 848 N.W.2d at 229 (quotations omitted).

2014“Once the moving party has made its threshold showing, the second step is to determine whether the party responding to the motion has produced clear and convincing evidence that the moving party is not entitled to immunity.” Id.

2010See Minn.Stat. §§ 595.02, subd. 1(a) (stating marital privilege does not apply in "a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed ... against a child of either [spouse] or against a child under the care of either spouse”), 626.556, subd. 8 ("No evidence relating to the neglect or abuse of a child ... shall be excluded in any proceeding arising out of the alleged neglect or physical or sexual abuse on the grounds of privilege set forth in section 595.02, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), (d), or (g).”) (2008); State v. Willette, 421 N.W.2d 342, 346 (Minn.App.1988) (holding Minn.Stat. § 626.5

2005Appellant also challenges his sentence on the grounds that his waiver of his right to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary as required by State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 777 (Minn.1996). 2 That we do not find.

2005The postconviction court denied appellant’s petition on the grounds that the claim was procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976) (“Knaffla rule”) and failed on the merits even if not barred.

2005The postconviction court denied appellant’s petition on the grounds that the claim was procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976) (“Knaffla rule”) and failed on the merits even if not barred.

2002See State v. Spears, 560 N.W.2d 723, 726 (Minn.App.1997) (sustaining *123 state’s challenge to defense’s peremptory-strike on the grounds that the defense’s use of the peremptory strike was motivated by intentional discrimination).

1993See, e.g., State v. Abraham, 338 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn.1983) (issue not addressed on appeal in part because defense counsel did not state precisely his objection on the record).

1993See, e.g., State v. Abraham, 338 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn.1983) (issue not addressed on appeal in part because defense counsel did not state precisely his objection on the record).

1988See Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A., 375 N.W.2d 861, 869 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 30, 1985).

1986See Berger, 362 N.W.2d at 374 .

1983See Schoeb v. Cowles, 279 Minn. 331, 333-34 , 156 N.W.2d 895, 896-97 (1968) (construing Minn.Stat. § 631.31(2), the predecessor statute to Rule 26.02).

1983See Schoeb v. Cowles, 279 Minn. 331, 333-34 , 156 N.W.2d 895, 896-97 (1968) (construing Minn.Stat. § 631.31(2), the predecessor statute to Rule 26.02).

1975See, Ost v. Ulring, 207 Minn. 500 , 292 N. W. 207 (1940). 3 Only one Minnesota case under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act presents a fact situation at all similar to that of the case at bar.

1975See, Ost v. Ulring, 207 Minn. 500 , 292 N. W. 207 (1940). 3 Only one Minnesota case under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act presents a fact situation at all similar to that of the case at bar.