Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scanlon, 719 N.W.2d 674.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
16 Still, as Nelson points out, the supreme court has recognized its “power to overturn a verdict based on discovery violations even if prejudice is not explicitly shown.” (holding that appeal did not “qualify for reversal” for state’s discovery violations that were not prejudicial and “appear to be the result of oversight or mistake, not deliberate attempts to hide facts or surprise the defense” and “the information would not have prompted a change in trial strateg
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Generally, without a showing of prejudice to the defendant, the state’s violation of a discovery rule will not result in a new trial.” Palubicki, d at 489; (“Any discovery-related misconduct on the part of the state is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Generally, without a showing of prejudice to the defendant, the state’s violation of a discovery rule will not result in a new trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Generally, without a showing of prejudice to the defendant, the state’s violation of a discovery rule will not result in a new trial.”); Walen v. State , (requiring that the evidence at issue be material, which means that “the absence of the evidence must have ca
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
.”); (“[N]one of the violations were prejudicial, even cumulatively, and Scanlon was not deprived of a fair trial.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(affirming conviction on circumstantial evidence, and rejecting possible “scenarios [that] stretch the concept of ‘rational hypothesis’ to absurd limits”); (stating that the jury is best able to weigh conflicting evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 (stating that a discovery violation did not prejudice the defendant when the prosecutor “followed his office’s usual practice for obtaining criminal history records”).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Anthony Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Anthony Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
When introducing reverse-Spreigl evidence, the proponent also must “ ‘comply with procedural and evidentiary rules.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court properly excludes alternative-perpetrator evidence when the evidence is inadmissible hearsay because “[i]nadmissible hearsay statements cannot inherently connect an alternative perpetrator to a crime.” d 674, 677 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
see also Maryland v. Shatzer,-U.S.
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
-88 (Minn.2006), we affirmed a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, restating the analytical framework of Webb, d at 430-31 , -49 (Minn.1994).
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
(reviewing discovery error under harmless error analysis).
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
Finally, such evidence must also “comply with procedural and evidentiary rules.”
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
(declining to grant new trial in interests of justice because alleged prose-cutorial errors “appear to be the result of oversight or mistake, not deliberate attempts to hide facts or surprise the defense”), (stating that, although prosecutor’s comm