Cited by

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

192 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A district judge acting as a fact-finder is presumed to disregard extraneous material and “make decisions based solely on the merits.” n.8 (Minn. 2006) (“We acknowledge that evidentiary errors may be less prejudicial in a bench trial than in a jury trial.”); (affirming postconviction court’s determination that the prejudicial effect of Spreigl evidence was reduced due to the nature of a be
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Calvin James Jennings Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Calvin James Jennings Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The state also played the nearly 20-minute tape at the end of trial, meaning there was no chance that it “was lost among a plethora of other evidence.”
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“But whether the admission of evidence violates a criminal defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause is a question of law this court reviews de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]hether the admission of evidence violates a criminal defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause is a question of law this court reviews de novo.” d 304, 308 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Dotterweich Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Dotterweich Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[W]hether the admission of evidence violates a criminal defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause is a question of law this court reviews de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Brittny Nicole Ziegler 855 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brittny Nicole Ziegler 855 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-07, 309-10 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
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. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (concluding that district court’s error in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
We have said that “whether the admission of evidence violates a criminal defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause is a question of law this court re *552 views de novo.”
State v. Flermoen 785 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Flermoen 785 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that section 634.15 “permits the admission of a report ...

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by