Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304.

192 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kim Marie Tate, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2019) (considering de novo which of two cons titutional tests to apply); (reviewing de novo whet her the admission of evidence violates a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
See, e.g., State v. Leonard , –63 (Minn. 2020) (court trial on stipulated evidence); (court trial).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
a t 1 3 6 4 ; State v. Caulfield , -09 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lopez-Ramos 929 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2019
State v. Lopez-Ramos 929 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2019
2527 , 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), and State v. Caulfield
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Caulfield , (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)).
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Caulfield , , 308 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Caulfield , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The confrontation right “is not absolute” but subject to certain exceptions and forfeitable by “wrongful actions.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cf. State v. Caulfield , (finding that erroneously admitted lab report impacted verdict because state presented report as definitive ev idence of an element of the of fense).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A constitutional error does not mandate reversal and a new trial if we determine th at the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Caulfield
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Caulfield , , 308 (Minn. 2006).
, A17-1301 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Caulfield , , 314 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In other words, reversal is required if “the error reasonably could have impacted upon the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Evidentiary rulings “are within the discretion of the district court and will not be re versed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Caulfield
State v. Andersen 900 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Andersen 900 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)).