Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Courtney, 696 N.W.2d 73.

103 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, vs.Daniel Irlas 888 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, vs.Daniel Irlas 888 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William John Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William John Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
An error is harmful if there is a reasonable possibility that the “wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Ahmed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Ahmed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A request for a continuance to retain a new attorney is properly denied when “the defendant has not been diligent in procuring counsel or in preparing for trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Whether to grant a continuance to permit substitution of counsel is within the discretion of the district court, and is properly denied when “the defendant has not been diligent in procuring counsel or in preparing for trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When a trial court has erroneously admitted other crimes evidence, we must 7 determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“The jury is presumed to have followed the instruction.”).
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
However, “it is well settled that violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to [a harmless error] analysis.”
State v. Krause 817 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 2012
State v. Krause 817 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 2012
The State has an interest in “ ‘maintaining an efficient and effective judicial system.’ ” Jones, d at 505 -06 ().
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
In other words, even under harmless error review — which is the less onerous standard for a criminal defendant seeking reversal of his or her conviction or sentence — Hill cannot show “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
Harmless Error Analysis Even though the admission of several of Russell’s questions violated Swaney’s Confrontation Clause rights, we have held that such an error “does not automatically require reversal of the defendant’s conviction and the granting of a new trial.”
State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
For an error of constitutional dimension to be deemed harmless, “it must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
But we have noted that a balance must exist between a defendant’s “right to counsel of his choice against the public interest of maintaining *506 an efficient and effective judicial system.”
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
We have stated that for a Confrontation Clause “violation to be deemed harmless, it must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
Id.; (stating that when determining surely-unattributable question “we examine the record as a whole”).
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
(noting that “it is well settled that violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to such analysis”).
Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006