Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Billington, 63 N.W.2d 387.

59 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
See State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954).
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Soukup 746 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , (“[A] conviction will not be reversed for mere technical errors where it appears that the accused has not been prejudiced through the impairment of substantial rights essential to a fair trial.”).
State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954).
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
However, the constitutional right to a fair criminal trial does not guarantee a perfect trial, see State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954), and in this ease none of the supposed errors raised by Greenleaf deprived him of a fair trial.
State v. Clark 486 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Clark 486 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954).
State v. Ellis 476 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Ellis 476 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954)
State v. Thomas 467 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Thomas 467 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Furthermore, we will not reverse a conviction for a technical error unless the accused has been “prejudiced through the impairment of substantial rights essential to a fair trial.” State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , (footnote omitted).
Rowe v. Goldberg 435 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rowe v. Goldberg 435 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954) see also Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The constitutional guarantee of a fair trial does not require a “trial which is perfect in every detail.” State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954).
State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
17, 1986) (citing State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954)).
State v. Knaak 396 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Knaak 396 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418 , the supreme court stated: The rule is well settled that when a charge as a whole is substantially correct but in some particulars is verbally inaccurate or contains obviously unintentional misstatements, which it is fair to assume the court would have corrected had the matter been called to its
State v. Marty 376 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Marty 376 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954).
State v. Carver 363 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Carver 363 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427
State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , -93 (1954).
State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 426
State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
It is true, as the state argues, that in construing a charge it must be viewed in its entirety and reviewed as a whole, State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 426
State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418
State v. Cooper 206 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1973
State v. Cooper 206 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1973
State v. Weber, 272 Minn. 243 , State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
See, State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418
State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
* * * Further: “ * * Where the defense is conducted by counsel selected by defendant * * *, it is only under very exceptional circumstances that a new trial will be granted on account of the manner in which the defense was conducted * * *.’ ” *321 See, State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 424 , 63 N. W. (2d) 387, 391 .
State v. Love 173 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1970
State v. Love 173 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1970
6 State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 365 , 104 N. W. (2d) 650, 655 , 86 A. L. R. (2d) 649; State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427 , 63 N. W. (2d) 387, 393 ; State v. Braman, 281 Minn. 91, 93 , 160 N. W. (2d) 575, 576 .
State v. Russell 138 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1965
State v. Russell 138 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1965
3 State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 424 , 63 N. W. (2d) 387, 391 .
State v. Weber 137 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1965
State v. Weber 137 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1965
Hence, there should be no absolute rule on the subject; and the trial Court’s discretion should determine whether a particular admission is so plenary as to render the first party’s evidence wholly needless under the circumstances.” This court held in State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418 , 63 N. W. (2d) 387 , that it was not prejudicial error to admit in evidence a letter written by the defendant to the attorney general which corroborated the admission of the defendant made upon the trial that he
State v. Rasmussen 128 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1964
State v. Rasmussen 128 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1964
In this situation we cannot hold that the instruction challenged constituted reversible error, particularly where the verdict appears supported by substantial evidence, State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418 , 63 N. W. (2d) 387 ; State v. Guy, 259 Minn. 67 , 105 N. W. (2d) 892 ; and where no request was made to modify or correct it before the case went to the jury.
State v. Kline 124 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963