Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larson, 788 N.W.2d 25.

33 citing documents.

Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Prellwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(noting there was “other extensive evidence” of guilt when multiple witnesses testified and their testimony was corroborated by forensic evidence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The above errors are subject to a harmless -error analysis; accordingly, we next consider “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error[s].”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
Distinguished State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
Before a defendant is allowed to offer alternative perpetrator evidence, he or she "must first make a threshold showing that the evidence [he] seeks to admit has an 'inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the charged crime.’ " (-37 (Minn. 2010)).
State of Minnesota v. Andrea Deshawn Wilkes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrea Deshawn Wilkes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he decision to grant or deny a continuance lies within the discretion of the district court.” –31 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
Improperly admitted evidence is harmless, however, when the evidence is cumulative or there is “other extensive evidence connecting [the defendant] to the commission of the crime.” (concluding that the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless error when the State presented witness testimony and forensic evidence corroborated the testimony linking the defendant to the crime); (finding that erroneous admission of hearsay
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Second, the introduction of the statements must not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.” (footnote omitted); d *620 51, 54 (Minn.2012).
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Wiseman cites several Minnesota cases for the proposition that he has a fundamental right, implicit in the protections of the Fourth Amendment, to passively or nonviolently refuse to submit to a warrant-less police search by saying “no.” For example, -33 (Minn.2010), the state improperly commented to the jury regarding the defendant’s refusal to consent to providing a warrantless DNA sample.
State v. Brist 812 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 2012
State v. Brist 812 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible only if the defendant makes a “threshold showing that the evidence the defendant seeks to admit has an ‘inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.’ ” (-37 (Minn.2010)).
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
But a defendant who wishes to admit alternative perpetrator evidence must first make a threshold showing that the evidence the defendant seeks to admit has an “inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.” -37 (Minn.2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Brist 799 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brist 799 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Second, the introduction of the statements must not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.” (footnote omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by