State v. McArthur
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HANSON, Justice.
Appellant Wambli S. McArthur appeals his conviction for first-degree, premeditated murder. McArthur argues (1) the evidence is insufficient to establish premeditation; (2) the testimony of witnesses’ fears of him was erroneously admitted; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. In his pro se supplementary brief, McArthur argues that an order prohibiting his attorney from discussing witnesses’ identities with him until seven days before trial was improper and prejudicial. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the evidence is sufficient…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. GrillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- State v. RameySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- Bernhardt v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. BiasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. SwansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- State v. AndersenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- State v. RaleighSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- State v. HollidaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. YangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.