Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sanders, 775 N.W.2d 883.

85 citing documents.

State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
“When an alleged evidentiary error is harmless, an appellate court need not address the mer *813 its of the claimed error.” , 889 n.5 (Minn. 2009).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. D. B., Juvenile Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“When the [erroneous admission of evidence] implicates a constitutional right, a new trial is required unless the State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that error was harmless.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But an erroneous admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right requires reversal only “when the error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.” , 887 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Jason Bresnahan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Jason Bresnahan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Under this standard of review, “the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
Because the district court’s error in admitting the information does not implicate a constitutional right, a new trial is required only if the error “substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In analyzing the relevant factors, we conclude that the admission of the 911 recording was harmless and that “the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.”
State of Minnesota v. Suclah Clarke Sibou Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Suclah Clarke Sibou Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Depending on whether the district court’s erroneous admission of evidence implicates a constitutional right, we have applied two different harmless-error tests for determining whether the defendant was prejudiced by the admission
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
-89 (Minn.2009) (explaining that we need *537 not reach the issue of whether Scales applies to interrogations conducted outside Minnesota because we concluded that the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the alleged Scales violation).
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
(explaining that we did not need to decide which harmless error standard applied “because even under the more favorable constitutional harmless-error standard, Sanders was not prejudiced”).
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.”).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
(explaining that if a defendant objects to the admission of evidence at trial, the admission of that evidence is reviewed under the harmless error standard).