Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Viker v. Wal-Mart, 695 N.W.2d 97.

112 citing documents.

State v. Prtine 799 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
Indirect statements made by prosecutors referring to a defendant’s failure to testify are “prohibited if they either (1) manifest the prosecutor’s intention to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, or (2) are such that the jury would naturally have understood them as a comment on defendant’s failure to testify.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
or the basis of the ruling is obvious.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Griffin 760 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution.”
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution.”
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
We have stated that the victim’s state of mind must be relevant to be admissible, and “[o]rdinarily, a homicide victim’s state of mind is not relevant to whether the defendant committed the crime.” (emphasis added).
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
803(3), a hearsay statement is admissible if it is a “statement *697 of the declarant’s then existing state of mind.” Admissibility under Rule 803(3) “also turns on weighing probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice.” see Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only if the verdict rendered was “surely unattributable to the error.”