Supreme Court of Minnesota· 7/27/1973

State v. Williams

Citations

210 N.W.2d 21
297 Minn. 76
1973 Minn. LEXIS 1063

How courts have described this case

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

holding that, although “the evidence [was] clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction,” the prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and warranted a new trial
holding that, although “the evidence [was] clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction,” the prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and warranted a new trial
holding that, although “the evidence [was] clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction,” the prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and warranted a new trial
holding that, although “the evidence [was] clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction,” the prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and warranted a new trial
holding that, although “the evidence [was] clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction,” the prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and warranted a new trial
holding that, although “the evidence [was] clearly sufficient to support defendant’s conviction,” the prosecutor’s misconduct was prejudicial and warranted a new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Knutson, Rogosheske, Peterson, Kelly, Gillespie, Yetka, Scott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.