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. Al-Naseer, 690 N.W.2d 744.

77 citing documents.

  • State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
    To determine whether a constitutional error regarding the admission of evidence is harmless, we consider “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.” -16 (Minn.2006) (applying the Al-Naseer factors).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
    State v. Al-Naseer (Al-Naseer II), 753 (Minn.2005).
  • State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
    whether it was effectively countered by the defendant,’ and the strength of the evidence of guilt.” Hall, d at 842 ().
  • State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
    When determining whether a jury verdict was surely unattributable to an erroneous admission of evidence, we consider the “manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
    *376 El-Shabazz claims that two cases, continued to develop the new rule, thereby postdating his earlier petitions.
  • State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
    -48 (Minn.2005) (“.Al-Naseer 17”).
  • State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    In determining “whether a jury verdict was surely unattributable to an erroneous admission of evidence,” we must consider the “manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”
  • State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
    See Caulfield, d at 314 ; (noting that “overwhelming evidence of guilt” is often a very important factor in the harmless error analysis but stating that “the court cannot focus on the evidence of guilt alone”).
  • State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
    ( ) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 721 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Al-Naseer 721 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
    (stating that juries may view a request for an attorney as a “badge of guilt”).
  • Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005