DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556.

118 citing documents.

  • State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
    Under the harmless error standard, a defendant who alleges an error that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove there is a “ ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ().
  • State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
    VI; Minn. Const, art. I, § 6
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
    Similarly, -64 (Minn.2008), we concluded that evidence that appellant (1) was in a group that had a “verbal confrontation” with another group, (2) pulled out his revolver after a member of the opposing group reached behind his back, (3) chased and aimed his revolver at a specific person, (4) fired multiple shots, and (5) fle
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
    “When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” ().
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    In other respects, we “review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.”
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” (quoting Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 , 106 S.Ct.