DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58.

155 citing documents.

  • 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. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Occhino 572 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Occhino 572 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    - “A reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.” Id.
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
    (quoting State v. Loe *699 bach, ).
  • State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
    We liken the evidence of Johnson’s pregnancy, her physical condition after the assault
  • State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Horning 535 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Horning 535 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
    Admitting evidence of this sort is very similar to admitting evidence that a defendant in a child abuse ease was abused as a child and that child abusers typically were abused as children, (ruling that evidence of battered parent syndrome is inadmissible), or like admitting evidence in a child abuse prosecution of the boy friend of the victim’s single mother that single mothers’ babysitting boy friends are more likely to be child abusers, State v. Steward, 34 Wash.App.
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    -64 (Minn.1981) (because of lack of scientific reliability and diagnostic accuracy, prosecutor may not ask defendant whether he was beaten as child in order to imply that he is more likely to be child abuser); -10 (Minn.App.1984) (“highly prejudicial” for prosecutor to ask defend
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Even if the trial court errs in an evidentiary ruling, “[a] reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.”
  • State v. Horning 511 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Horning 511 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Even if the trial court errs in an evidentiary ruling, “[a] reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.” (), pet.
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    They will be reversed “only when [an] error substantially influences the jury to convict.”
  • State v. Palmer 507 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Palmer 507 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Even if the trial court errs in an evidentiary ruling, “[a] reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.” (), pet.
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    -5 (Minn.1981) (statements that might constitute misconduct are not inherently prejudicial where there is substantial evidence to support the conviction).
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
    Consequently, for reversal: A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Patterson 493 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Patterson 493 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Even if the trial court errs in an evidentiary ruling, “[a] reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.” (), pet.
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Additionally, even if the court errs in an eviden-tiary ruling, “[a] reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.”
  • State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990