Cited by

Appellate courts have reversed for that reason only “in rare cases.” State v. Davis

An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the [fact-finder’s] verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Davis , (quotation and citation omitted).

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

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

But to be entitled to relief, appellants must generally prove not only that an error occurre d, but also that they were prejudiced by the error.3

(“In a close case, we may be inclined to grant a defendant a new trial based on th e cumulative effect of errors that do not individually require a new trial .

t to cross -examination under penalty of perjury; the declarant’s relationships to the parties in the litigation; “the declarant’s motivation to make the statement”; “the declarant’s personal knowledge” of the statement; whether the declarant recanted the statement; “the existence of corroborating evidence”; and “the character of the declarant for truthfulness and honesty.”

A district court is to “use a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” (quotations omitted).

Appellate courts have reached such a determination only “in rare cases.”

“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. , State v. Davis , , 539 n.10 (Minn. 2012) (determining that appellant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims "are without merit because counsel's failure to raise meritless objections is not ineffective assistance of counsel"); Hannon v. State , , 522 (Minn. 2008) (same).

Instead, courts are to “use a totality of the circumstances tes t to determine whether the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” (quotation omitted).

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

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.” 12 (quotation omitted).

See , e.g. , State v. Robertson , , 877 (Minn. 2016) ("After carefully considering each argument in full, we conclude that [appellant's] pro se claims lack merit."); State v. Davis , , 539 (Minn. 2012) ("After carefully reviewing each of these claims, we conclude that they all lack merit and, therefore, we hold that [appellant] is not entitled to a new trial based on the issues raised in his supplemental pro se briefs.").

State v. Davis , , 533 (Minn. 2012).

State v. Griffin , , 693 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Davis , , 537 (Minn. 2012) ).

In rare cases, “the cumulative effect of trial errors can depr ive 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.” -39 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

An excited utterance is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” Id.

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

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

But if we determine that the district court erred in excluding evidence and the error implicates a co nstitutional right, the defendant is entitled to a new trial “unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 11

An excited utterance is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” Id.

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

And when an error implicates a constitutional right, an appellate court 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 er ror is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Davis , (citation a nd quotation omitted).

hould not be readily second-guessed.” Id.; see, (in rejecting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s failure to hire an investigator and interview witnesses, stating that “trial tactics should not be reviewed by an appellate court, which, unlike the counse l, has the benefit of hindsight ”); State v. Davis , n. 10 (Minn. 2012) ( stating “decisions about which witnesses to interview are typically matters of trial strategy that we will not review”); (holding that it wa

(emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

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

(summarily rejecting unsupported pro se supplemental claims).

(reversing based on cumulative error where there was substantial conflicting testimony and difficult factual determinations).

d 525, 538 (Minn. 2012).

See State v. Davis , (finding harmless error where purportedly inadmissible statement put appellant at crime scene, but the “mere presence at the scene of a crime does not establish that [appellant] aided or abetted criminal activity”).

“While there are no strict temporal guidelines for admitting an excited utterance, the statement must be made 4 while the declarant is under the stress of excitement from the startling event.” (quotation omitted).