Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Weaver, 733 N.W.2d 793.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 309 (holding that lab report identifying substance found on defendant as cocaine was testimonial because it was created after police had seized substance and began investigation); (holding that lab results , created in the course of 10 homicide investigation and after appellant had been arrested as a suspect, were testimonial), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To determine whether an error had a significant effect on the jury, courts may consider “the strength of the state’s case, the pervasiveness of the error, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to respond.” Noor, d at 657; see also State v. Weaver , (articulating these and other considerations), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Matthews, d at 634; (stating that evidence was highly persuasive when it was not merely cumulative of other evidence presented at trial), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 310 (concluding that a BCA laboratory report indicating a substance was cocaine was testimonial evidence); see also State v. Weaver , (concluding that toxicology reports of blood samples were testimonial evidence), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Lee, d at 440 (“When an error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted)); (determining that appellant was “entitled to a new trial” where the erroneous admission of laboratory test results “surely influenced the verdict in some way”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Rosalio Martinez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Rosalio Martinez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
was to provide prima facie evidence of” an element of the offense); -18 (Minn. App. 2009) (determining that a firearm trace report introduced to prove firearm ownership was testimonial), rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009); -800 (Minn. App. 2007) (determining that a lab report introduced to prove the cause of death in a murder trial was testimonial), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-80 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that laboratory report concerning carbon- monoxide levels in victim’s blood has “the appearance of being conclusive proof”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
636 (Minn. 1982) (affirming upward departure based on particular cruelty where defendant killed the victim by repeatedly hitting the victim on the head with two different hammers and stuffing her mouth with paper); (Courts have “found ‘particular cruelty’ to exist when a defendant leaves the victim to die alone without notifying emergency personnel.”) Dominguez also argues that the postconviction court erred by concluding that the crime was committed in a location where the vict im had an expect
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” d at 317; 476-79 (Minn. 2007) (holding that the trial court’s error in admitting statements victims made to police officers during their field investigation was not harmless); - 02 (Minn. App. 2007) ( holding that the error in admitting test results through expert’s testimony was not harmless but rather warranted new trial), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g., Caulfield, d at 306, 310 (holding a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension lab r eport identifying substance found on defendant as cocaine was testimonial); State v. Weaver , - 800 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding that lab results created in the course of a homicide investigation were testimonial) , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Andersen 900 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Andersen 900 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brittny Nicole Ziegler 855 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brittny Nicole Ziegler 855 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 793, 799-800 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
Distinguished State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The state appealed the sentence, and this court reversed the district court’s conclusion that the “particular cruelty” aggravating factor is unconstitutionally vague and remanded for a new Blakely trial and resentencing, “with ‘particular cruelty’ ” Id.
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
The court of appeals remanded for a new Blakely trial and resentencing, with “particular cruelty” (defining “particular cruelty” as conduct “significantly more cruel” than that usually associated with the offense of conviction, and noting instances in which “particular cruelty” was found, including setting fire to a victim who was still alive, leaving a victim to die alone without notifying em
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Distinguished State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
We note that the two cases appellant relies on to argue that the firearm-trace report is testimonial, Caulfield, , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
This appears to be an issue of first impression in Minnesota, review denied (Minn. Sept.