Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 915 N.W.2d 740.

22 citing documents.

Crow Wing County State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee LaFlex Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, … Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Dhara Hayi Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Victor Zuniga Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When, as is the case here, a defendant “fail[s] to object at trial to the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct, we review the issue under a modified plain-error standard.”
State of Minnesota v. Cody Michael Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“On plain error review, speculation as to prejudice is not sufficient.”); (“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Samuel Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Samuel Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We may consider the strength of the state’s case against the defendant when determining prejudice, and the evidence here pointed overwhelmingly to Smith’s guilt.
State of Minnesota v. Cheath Tek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Cheath Tek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (strength); (frequency); (acquittals).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Casey Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And a n error is prejudicial and affects a defendant’s substantial rights “ if there is a reasonable likelihood” that the error “had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota Minn. 2021
But the erroneous admission of a statement can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when it does not amount to a confession , and other evidence of guilt is strong, ; ( holding that erroneously admitted statements, including a reference to “my victim,” were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the statements did not amount to a confession and there was overwhelming independent evidence of guilt), or when
State of Minnesota v. Linden Gene McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that if an alleged error is constitutional in nature, the state must prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wendlin Linderman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A defendant’s substantial rights are affected if “there is a r easonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury 8 verdict.” State v. Johnson , (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Chukwuebuke Ineh Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“If plain error is established, the defendant bears a heavy burden of showing that substan tial rights have been affected.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tywan Rulford Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A defendant’s substantial rights are affected if “there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2020
An erroneous jury instruction affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “ ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jovanny Masani Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Trajion Terrance Conner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-47 (Minn. 2018); State v. Washington
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Albert Schally Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jamere Gene Reese Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lester Corey Bates Minn. Ct. App. 2018