State v. McDaniel
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge.
Appellant Nathaniel McDaniel argues that he is entitled to a new trial because (1) the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of “great bodily harm” which is required for first-degree assault, and (2) the prosecutor’s remarks during appellant’s cross-examination and closing argument constituted prosecuto-rial misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant was convicted of first-degree assault for stabbing Joseph Keller with a knife on October 24, 1993. Appellant and his two witnesses testified that appellant was surrounded by several people and was struck himself before he…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. WebbSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- State v. WahlbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. CaronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- State v. TureSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. NorgaardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. PilotSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. GrigsbyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- State v. HarlinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
- Abdullahi Aden Ibrahim v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.