Cited by

“When an error implicates a constitutional right, [appellate courts] will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Because errors implicating constitutional rights are severe, we will apply the more stringent standard of review and order a new trial if we determine that an error occurred and that it was not “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” see also Whitson, d at 304.

An error affects the defendant’s substantial rights if “there is a reasonable likelihood the error had a significant effect on the verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“When an error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

See, e.g., 5 n.10 (Minn. 2012); (“Which witnesses to call at trial .

The “cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (quotation omitted).

“[I]n rare cases, [] the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (quotation omitted) (involving unobjected-to errors).

“A defendant is prejudiced by an evidentiary ruling when there is a reasonable possibility that without the error the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant.” (quotations omitted); (“An error is prejudicial if the error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted)).

An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” (citation and quotation omitted); 886-90 (Minn. 2021) (applying harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to erroneously admitted confession in a stipulated-evidence trial).

An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” (citation and quotation omitted).

An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” (citation and quotation omitted).

5 “ ‘When an error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ().

“When an error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

preme court has held that, in rare cases, “the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the error s and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (d 525, 539 (Minn. 2012)) (emphasis added), rev. denied (Minn. July 18, 2023).

-80 (Minn. 2015) (applying plain error to unobjected-to alleged constitutional error).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(“[T]rial tactics should not be reviewed by an appellate court, which, unlike the counsel, has the benefit of hindsight.”); (reasoning that the decisions to call certain witnesses falls within trial strategy and are not reviewable); State v. Davis , n.10 (Minn. 2012) (stating that whether to cross -examine a witness constituted trial strategy).

The supreme court has held that, “ in rare cases, the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” State v. Davis , (quotation omitted).

This is considered a “heavy burden.” .

(“An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” (quotation omitted)).

denied, 142 S. Ct. 819 (2022); State v. Davis , n.10 (Minn. 2012) (noting that “decisions about which witnesses to interview are typically matters of trial strategy that we will not review”); (noting that whether to cross-examine the state’s expert witness and failure to call alibi witnesses were matters o

The supreme court has held that, in rare cases, “the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant ’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” State v. Davis , (quotation omitted).

In rare cases, “the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (quotation omitted).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In rare cases, “the cumulative effect of trial errors can deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial when the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” State v. Davis , (quotation omitted).

See, n.10 (Minn. 2012) (stating decisions about which witnesses to interview are usually matters of trial strategy that appellate courts do not review); (stating whether to cross-examine an expert witness is an issue of trial strategy).

a man [got] back into the driver’s seat.” d 525 (Minn. 2012).

( n.10 (Minn. 2012)) (determining legal counsel’s decisions about the extent of investigation, which witnesses to call, and what questions to ask are typically matters of trial strategy that appellate courts will not review under Strickland).