Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Valtierra, 718 N.W.2d 425.

86 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
5 645, 659 (Minn. 2006); -39 (Minn. 2006) (stating in an accomplice-liability case that murder may be a probable consequence of an aggravated drug robbery).
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-79 (Minn. 2009) (ruling police officer testimony that defendant’s activities constituted a “pattern of criminal behavior” was an expression of a legal opinion and “invaded the province of the jury”); d 425, 434-35 (Minn. 2006) (prohibiting admission of testimony about a legal conclusion or about mixed questions of law and fact).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(d 425, 436 (Minn. 2006) (other citations and quotation marks omitted).
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
o respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted); State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 45, (“Where one party introduces inadmissible evidence, he cannot complain if the court permits his opponent in rebuttal to introduce similar inadmissible evidence.”); (noting that interrogation about prior convictions should be limited to the fact of 5 the conviction, the nature of the offense, and the identity of the defendant).
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(stating that in order to warrant new trial, evidentiary error *472 must have “substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
A properly objected-to instructional error regarding an element of an offense requires a new trial only “ ‘if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.’ ” ().
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Anderson 763 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2009
State v. Anderson 763 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2009
We will reverse “only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” Id.; , 435 n. 4 (Minn.2006) (applying this harmless error test when constitutional rights are not implicated).
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
“Erroneous jury instructions merit a new trial ‘if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.’ ” ().
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
Opening the door occurs when “one party by introducing certain material * * * creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quoting 8 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice—Criminal Law and Procedure § 32.54 (3d ed.2001)).
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
State v. Fields 730 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2007
“Erroneous jury instructions merit a new trial if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Caulfield, d at 314-15 (discussing standard for constitutional error); , 435 n. 4 (2006) (noting that standard for harmless evidentiary error is lower).
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
2006 WL 2075194 at *5-6 (Minn. July 27, 2006).
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006