Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Matthews, 800 N.W.2d 629.

140 citing documents.

Paul Omol Arkangelo Uchodu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hazley 901 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hazley 901 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“If the defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other plain error factors.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 629, 634 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court considers the following factors to determine whether the error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict: “(1) the manner in which the State presented the testimony, (2) whether the testimony was highly persuasive, (3) whether the State used the testimony in closing argument, and (4) whether the defense effectively countered the testimony.”
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Lilienthal 889 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Lilienthal 889 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(Matthews II, unrelated to Matthews).
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Put another way, an error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotations and citation omitted); (stating that “[a] plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable 7 likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict” and explaining that this analysis “is the equivalent of a harmless error anal
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
On the other hand, if all “three prongs are established, we will correct the error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or the public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(determining error was harmless where prosecutor’s discussion of contested evidence was limited to three sentences in 18-page closing argument).
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An evidentiary error that does not implicate a constitutional right5 warrants a new trial if there is a “reasonable possibility” that the error “significantly affected the verdict.” (quotations omitted).
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
Under the harmless-error standard, an appellant who alleges an error in the admission of evidence that does not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that testimony did not significantly impact the verdict because the manner in which the testimony was presented was brief; the testimony was not highly persuasive of guilt and other, strong evidence established guilt; the defense counsel countered the testimony in closing argument; an
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The court’s analysis under [this] third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The court’s analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis.”
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
Under the harmless-error analysis, a defendant who alleges an error that does not implicate a constitutional right will be granted a new trial if the defendant proves that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the error "significantly affected the verdict.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
3 Under the Andersen test, we must first identify the circumstances proved, and in doing so, we will “defer to the fact-finder’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and the fact-finder’s rejection of evidence in the record that conflicts with the circumstances proved by the State.” (citing Andersen, d at 329 ).
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
“When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, we use a two-step test to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by