Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592.

84 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 29; see also Kelley, d at 283-84 (ruling an erroneous jury instruction does not ordinarily significantly affect the jury’s verdict if there is “considerable evidence of the defendant’s guilt”); 6 (holding defendant’s substantial rights were not affected where “considerable evidence” supported jury’s verdict).
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
“Evidence of motive alone does not have the inherent tendency to connect a third party to the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(affirming a conviction on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction when jury would not have reached a different conclusion even if it had been properly instructed and any error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights).
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he district court may exclude any evidence, although relevant, for which the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury substantially outweighs its probative value.” - 99 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The plain-error test requires: (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect the defendant’s substantial rights.”
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
See, (concluding that the self-defense jury instruction could not have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict because “no reasonable jury could find [defendant’s] actions to be a reasonable use of force”); (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s intent that the victim be murdered); Gomez, d at 881 (“Given the totality of the evidence, it seems u
Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(concluding that failure to ask jury whether victim’s death was reasonably foreseeable to Larson did not prejudice substantial rights when “considerable evidence” produced at trial that Larson intended victim be murdered).
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
(not analyzing the first two prongs of the plain-error test because the third prong was dispositive).
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
To establish plain error, a defendant must show: “(1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect the defendant’s substantial rights.”
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
(holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding alternative perpetrator evidence because “Larson did not proffer any evidence connecting [alleged alternative perpetrator] in any way to the events leading up to the murder, any evidence showing he was at or near the murder scene
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
-02 (Minn.2010) (holding that any alleged error in jury instructions on intent was harmless due to overwhelming evidence); (holding that an erroneous jury instruction regarding a defendant’s flight was harmless because the case against the defendant was “very
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Minnesota has used various terms to describe this type of defense, including “alternative perpetrator,” see, and "third party perpetrator,” see

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by