People v. Lovines

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant is not entitled to a new trial when a peremptory challenge is used to cure a district court's erroneous denial of a motion to remove a biased juror for cause
• stating that failure to file motion on spoliation of evidence fell “squarely within tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel” (quotation omitted)
• stating that a defendant is allowed to present evidence challenging the police investigation of alternative suspects
• explaining that “the court must still evaluate [the alternative perpetrator] evidence under the ordinary evidentiary rules as it would any other exculpatory evidence” (quoting Jones, 678 N.W.2d at 16)
• stating that the de minimis nature of the reference to facts not in evidence and the strength of the state’s case indicated there was no reasonable likelihood the improper reference impacted the verdict
• stating that “bare assertions as to what could have happened are not evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).