Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier, 874 N.W.2d 792.

265 citing documents.

Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts look to the following factors when determining whether testimony significantly affected a 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. 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. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
(noting that Watkins did not adopt an “exclusive” test for assessing the substantial-rights prong).
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jolene Carmel Goblish Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jolene Carmel Goblish Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because Goblish “did not raise the objection in the district court that she now raises on appeal, her jury-instruction-omission claim is subject to the plain-error analysis.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Lee Bender Minn. Ct. App. 2016