Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. SONTOYA, 788 N.W.2d 868.

107 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court may decline to consider an issue on the merits if the appellant does not “cite either the record or legal authority to support [the] claim.” .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A]n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ 4 on the verdict.” State v. Finch , ( (Mi nn.
MicLeonard James Fisherman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
MicLeonard James Fisherman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(declining to address a pro se claim on the merits where the defendant cited neither the record nor legal authority for support).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(declining to consider pro se argument where appellant cited neither record nor legal support of argument).
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“To determine whether the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict, we review the strength of the State’s case, the pervasiveness of the error, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the testimony.” State 15 v. Sontoya
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A]n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ on the verdict.” (quoting State v. Sontoya ).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A]n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ on the verdict.” ().
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
“Expert testimony may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 15 prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.” -73 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[E]xpert testimony is not helpful if the expert opinion is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Accordingly, the district court must decide “whether the expert is qualified to express [an] opinion, and whether the opinion is helpful because it will assist the trier of fact.” (quotation omitted).
Thomas v. Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 869 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 2015
Thomas v. Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 869 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 2015
Although generally we will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal, we may review any “matter as the interest of justice may require,” Minn. R. Civ.App.
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error affects substantial rights if the error was prejudicial and there “is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Scott Michael Popa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Scott Michael Popa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To determine whether the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict, we review the strength of the State’s case, the pervasiveness of the error, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the testimony.”
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Osma Mardoqueo Escho Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Osma Mardoqueo Escho Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Humphrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Humphrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In both cases cited by Bardney, the issue was the admission of opinion testimony by an expert witness.
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
(concluding that the defendant’s substantial rights were not affected because “[t]he evidence of Sontoya’s guilt was overwhelming”); Larson, d at 601 (holding that the defendant’s substantial rights were not affected because there was “considerable evidence” of the defendant’s guilt).
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
(declining to consider the defendant’s pro se claim because he did “not cite either the record or legal authority to support [the] claim”); ("We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal auth
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
(declining to address a pro se claim on the merits where the defendant did not cite either the record or legal authority for support); (noting that “[w]e will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to le
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by