DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Robinson, 718 N.W.2d 400.

133 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    9 “statements of identification by child sexual abuse victims are always admissible under the medical diagnosis exception.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Under the second factor, the state must show that there is “no dispute as to whether the declarant actually made the statement.” aff’d
  • State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
    In deciding whether a statement qualifies under the residual exception, courts use a “totality of the circumstances test” to determine whether the statement has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.”
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    E. Harmless Error The erroneous admission of evidence is “harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admit *892 ted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotations omitted).
  • State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    “The erroneous admission of evidence is ‘harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” () (other quotation omitted).
  • State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
    Under the harmless error standard, a defendant who alleges an error that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove there is a “ ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ().
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    The erroneous admission of evidence is “harmless if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)); (applying the Post standard to the erroneous admission of a conviction for impeachment), review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    common meaning, “and the definition provided by CRIMJIG does not greatly increase the jury’s understanding of the phrase.” -800 (Minn.App.2005) (holding that it is not plain error to fail to define intent in the instructions in an assault case), ajfd in part, rev’d in part and remanded on other grounds
  • State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
    (referencing 1989 Task Force on Gender Fairness in the Courts as having “alerted us to the thousands of cases of domestic abuse reported each year and the critical need to assure that domestic abuse victims receive both civil and criminal legal relief.”).
  • State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
    8 The “[e]rroneous admission of evidence that does not have constitutional implications is harmless if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)).
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
    (domestic abuse victim’s statement to a nurse contained sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness that it was admissible under the residual exception).
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
    In State v. Robinson, we concluded that the Confrontation Clause was inapplicable where the declarant “testified and was subject to cross-examination.”
  • State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007