Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Davis, 820 N.W.2d 525.

192 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Edward Antonio Zappa Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tavaris Jermaine McDaniel Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Finally, appellant argues that the cumulative effect of admitting the video-chat evidence and the instances of prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial “by producing a biased jury.” Hill, d at 659.
State of Minnesota v. Tavaris Jermaine McDaniel Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While there are no strict temporal guidelines, the statement must be made “while the declarant is under the stress of excitement from the startling event.” (quotation omitted).
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
“When an error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Ricardo Amigon-Vidal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ricardo Amigon-Vidal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.” (citations omitted); see also Hannon, d at 505 (noting that the state has the burden of proving that the error was harmless).
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that, “in rare cases, that 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).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerome Emmanuel Davis v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2016
Jerome Emmanuel Davis v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Albert Dlugopolski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Albert Dlugopolski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” (citation and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Demetrius White, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erik Demetrius White, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Robinson, d at 409 (holding that the Confrontation Clause did not bar consideration of evidence corroborating a witness’s out-of-court statements because the witness testified at trial).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
(holding that the defendant's trial strategy impacted whether a plain error in the jury instructions affected the defendant's substantial rights).
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If the district court abused its discretion and the “error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(rejecting meritless pro se claims in summary fashion).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When an error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant who fails to object to a no-adverse-inference instruction “bears a heavy burden of showing that substantial rights have been affected, and absent a showing of prejudice, the instruction is harmless.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sterling, d at 171 ( (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When an error implicates a constitutional right, we will award a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2015