Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Miller, 754 N.W.2d 686.

60 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that the district court’s erroneous admission of a hearsay statement was harmless error because “there was more than sufficient other evidence from which the jury could have inferred [guilt]”).
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [(1984)].” (citation omitted).
Inquiry into the Conduct of Karasov 805 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2011
Inquiry into the Conduct of Karasov 805 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
As for the first prong, objective reasonableness requires an attorney to exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would [exercise] under the circumstances.” (alternation in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Crane 766 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In other cases, appellate courts have applied the harmless-error test, holding that a new trial is not *73 necessary unless the denial of discovery is “prejudicial [to] the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” -07 (Minn.2008); (“Even if the trial court erred in quashing the subpoena, á new trial is required only if the ...