Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hall, 764 N.W.2d 837.

63 citing documents.

State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
When reviewing constitutional error, we first determine whether the district court erred, and then “whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” -42 (Minn.2009); see also id.
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
844 n. 4 (Minn.2009) (applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-harmless-error standard to assess constitutional errors).
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
We have explained that the “[t]he district court has ‘broad discretion’ when it comes to the admission of evidence” and we “will upset such rulings only if it can be said that the [district] court abused its discretion.” ().
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
885 n. 1 (Minn.1988) (stating presumption apparently for first time in Minnesota, and relying on contemporaneous U.S. Supreme Court discussion of question).