Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Holt v. State, 772 N.W.2d 470.

79 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jordan Hunter Cole Vos Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Cristian Joel Mungia Figueroa Minn. Ct. App. 2026
has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Jill Marie Duchscherer On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Jonathan Alexander Doringcott Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(reviewing district court’s determination whether a statement met the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Manuel Santana Acosta Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deionte Jaewon Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
As the party claiming error, Parker bears “the 22 burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sylvester Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Snowman Construction v. Ceresota Funding II LLC, et al., Minnwest Bank Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deanna Lea King Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 470, 483 (Minn. 2009) .
State of Minnesota v. George Luis Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Relevant here, “[a] determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Soloman Price Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Daud Yasin Hashi Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ritalka, Inc. v. Amanda Jean Smith, et al., Noel Jennings Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Scott Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Lee Jones, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Peter Michael Dziuk Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“In determining whether a defendant’s Faretta rights have been respected, the primary focus must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way.” (quotation 11 omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Norberto De Jesus Zelada Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice 6 resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joe Cecil Sistrunk Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Lee Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Richard Eugene Ball, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Savanna Novel Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota Respondent v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota Respondent v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Frelix, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Curtis Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Cortez Deon Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. David Busch Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” Holt v. State , (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota v. Frank James Bigbear Minn. Ct. App. 2023
for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State , .
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
n.1 (Minn. 2013); d 470, 481 n.5 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Dak Luk Ret Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Franchel Delmar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Alexander James Ray v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Moreover, “being the victim of a crime does not, standing alone, create ‘preconceived bias in the mind of the prospective juror.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. K’lob Jaymes Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing the error and prejudice resulting from the error.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
Omar Kwabena Walford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Harun Warsame Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Jesus Pomavilla Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A defendant claiming error in the distri ct court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” Holt v. State, 6 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Antrquier Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A defendant claim ing error in the district court’ s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Josphe Kriesel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsa y exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey David Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State
State of Minnesota v. David Ronald Leonard Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We will not reverse a district court’s evid entiary rulings absent a “clear abuse of discretion.” ( quotations omitted); (reviewing district court’s ruling on hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Warren James Northrup Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Holt v. State , (hearsay); (foundation).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Rossbach Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Scott Archambault, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5 “A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the pr ejudice resulting from the error.” Holt v. State , (quotation omitted ).
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Abdullah Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lee Bonacci-Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The seating of a biased juror constitutes structural error requiring a new trial because that error “undermines the basic structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself.” Holt v. State , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Thomas R. Blanck, et al v. Rayvell Deprie Carter, Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Company, EAN Holdings, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A defendant claim ing error in the district court’ s 7 reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Ven Vangrevenhof Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 “A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State