Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871.

118 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Spreigl evidence is relevant and material when there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in terms of time, place, or modus operandi.”
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
holding that “[i]f the 3 defendant requests the instruction, the court or the defendant’s counsel must make a record of ‘the defendant’s clear consent and insistence that the instruction be given.’” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
The overall goal in every substantial-rights analysis in a jury-instruction-error case is to determine whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (examining the prejudice prong in the context of an erroneously included jury instruction); see also Watkins, d at 28 (quoting Gomez in the context of a jury instruction that omitted an element).
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that in determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, we review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings); (stating it is not the reviewing court’s role to reconcile conflicting evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott argues that giving a no-adverse-inference instruction without obtaining a defendant’s express consent to the instruction on the record is always plain error
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse B. Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse B. Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theo Barry Putt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Theo Barry Putt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“It is not the province of this court to reconcile conflicting evidence.
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Substantial rights are affected if “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
As to the third prong, whether substantial rights were affected, a defendant bears “the heavy burden of proving that ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
To establish that the erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction affected his substantial rights, Kelley has the heavy burden of proving that “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” accord Griller, d at 741 .
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Folland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Folland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Griller, d at 741; (stating that substantial rights are affected if “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict”).
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Griller, d at 741 (stating that an error affects substantial rights if it “was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case”); (stating that substantial rights are affected if “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict”).
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Reversal for clear error occurs only when we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
“An error in instructing the jury is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See Carridine, d at 138 (stating that prospective juror whose family member was charged with a nonviolent crime was not similarly situated to a potential juror whose family member was charged with a violent crime); (holding that defendant failed to prove that state’s striking of a potential juror demonstrated purposeful discrimination, reasoning that, even though the potential juror and three other potential jurors all expressed reluctance to sit in judgment of others, the three other potential
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
(peremptory strike based on prospective juror’s expressed discomfort at deciding whether “to put someone away” and deciding another person’s future was race-neutral).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
5 -85 (Minn.2006) (explaining that although other jurors had family or Mends who were convicted of a crime, none of those jurors expressed that it was a wrongful conviction, thereby validating the State’s race-neutral explanation).
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
See, -88 (Minn.2007); -84 (Minn.2006); Blanche, d at 364-65 ; Reiners, d at 831-32 ; -54 (Minn.1992).
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009