Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Morrow, 834 N.W.2d 715.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Daryl Shannon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
intent to kill.” d 715, 730 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Davis, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
n.4 (Minn. 2013) (stating that arguments not briefed on appeal are forfeited).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. W. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 6, 16 (Minn. 2025) (holding that arguments that were not raised before the court of appeals were forfeited); d 266, 270 n.5 (Minn. 2024) (concluding that an argument that was not raised in a petition for review was forfeited); n.4 (Minn. 2013) (declining to consider arguments raised at oral argument but not in the appellant’s brief).
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jose Sanchez Andrade Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Reasoning that a “victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life[,]” the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[t]he prosecution has some leeway to show that spark and present the victim as a human being.” –27 (Minn. 2013) (alteration in original) ().
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Konakowitz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.4 (Minn. 2013) (declining to consider issues not briefed on appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Pedro Ricardo Flores Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Shane Kenneth Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A nonconstitutional error is harmless unless it “substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.” n.7 (Minn. 2013).
A20-1588 Minn. 2021
State v. Morrow , n.4 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alonzo Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Duane Cedric Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A non constitutional error is harmless unless it “substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.” n.7 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When an error implicates a constitutional right, a new trial is required unless the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” n.7 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Deangelo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Kutchara, d at 926; (holding that testimony that defendant was truant and had sworn at a teacher in high school was not prejudicial in a trial for murder and attempted murder).
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When an error does not implicate a constitutional right, the error is harmless unless it “substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.” n.7 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Keely Hartley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Hector Rufino Vergara-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
9 When an error does not implicate a constitutional right, the error is harmless unless it “substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.” n.7 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Jude Schnagl Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Brandyn Earley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In addition to showing a “compelling reason,” a petitioner “bears a heavy burden when seeking to overturn an indictment.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 886 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 886 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2016
Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2016
Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2016
1 The facts underlying Morrow’s
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
We have allowed such evidence at trial “so long as it is not an attempt to invoke undue sympathy or inflame the passions of the jdry,” ().
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
[Appellate courts] review the totality of circumstances to determine whether the State met its burden to establish that a statement was voluntary.” (citation and quotations omitted).
Hunter Daniel Hanlon v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hunter Daniel Hanlon v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.4 (Minn. 2013) (stating that issue raised for the first time on oral argument was waived).
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
724 n. 4 (Minn.2013) (stating that an issue argued at oral argument, but not raised in the briefs is waived).
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that we do not consider claims when an appellant fails to cite the record or any legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The decision to grant surrebuttal closing argument lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” (stating that Minn. R. Crim.
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014