Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Flowers, 114 N.W.2d 78.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
[b]ut to 19 reach the conclusion[] that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of defendant was conclusively proven.” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168, )).
Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
“We have a natural hesitation to reverse a conviction on errors * * * in the admission of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is strong * * *, [b]ut to reach the conclusion[ ] that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of the defendant was conclusively proven.” State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168 , (quoting State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.
State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
“We have a natural hesitation to reverse a conviction on errors * * * in the admission of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is strong * * *, [b]ut to reach the conclusion[ ] that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of defendant was conclusively proven.” State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168 , (quoting State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See State v. Shariah, 297 Minn. 19, 23-24 , State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168, -81 (1962).
State v. Butenhoff 484 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Butenhoff 484 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Where the evidence is of “such an exceptionally prejudicial character that its withdrawal from the jury cannot remove *63 the harmful effects caused by its admission, a new trial should be granted.” State v. Bergland, 290 Minn. 249, 254 , see also State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 167 , (mere asking of a question regarding a defendant’s propensity to commit certain types of crimes is sufficiently damaging to require reversal, even where objection to question is sustained); (dis-allowance of answe
State v. Nylund 371 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Nylund 371 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , the State attempted to introduce evidence of other assaults to impeach the defendant’s denial of a propensity to fight.
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
297 Minn. at 24 , d at 911 ; State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164
State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
State v. Diamond, Minn., State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164
State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
In State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N, W. 2d 78 (1962), we held that it was error for the prosecutor to cross-examine a defendant, charged with assault, about other unrelated assaults involving different persons.
State v. Turner 239 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1976
State v. Turner 239 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1976
In State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , we were presented with the following episode: “On the direct examination of defendant, his counsel elicited the following testimony: “ ‘Q. Did you ever kick or strike Darwin Morrow on the evening of March 26th?
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , State v. Rediker, 214 Minn. 470 , State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , 181 * State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164
State v. Martin 211 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1973
State v. Martin 211 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1973
The state attempts to justify the cross-examination because of defendant’s volunteered answer, “I never shot no L.S.D.” In State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , we held it reversible error to allow an attack on defendant’s character where precisely the same kind of a volunteered unresponsive answer was given.
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , (I have never kicked, struck anyone); State v. Stockton, 181 Minn. 566 , (I never robbed anyone).
State v. Sha 193 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1972
State v. Sha 193 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1972
That doctrine was reaffirmed in State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164
State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 .
State v. Huffstutler 130 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1964
State v. Huffstutler 130 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1964
State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Rutledge, 142 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Gandel, 173 Minn. 305 , ; State v. Gorman, 219 Minn. 162 , 17 N. W. (2d) 42 ; State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 .
State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
In other situations where the evidence convicting defendant was more conclusive than here, this court has refused to act as “a super-jury.” State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 ; 3 State v. Reardon, 245 Minn. 509 , 73 N. W. (2d) 192 .
State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
4 State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 .
State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 .