Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shamp, 427 N.W.2d 228.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that error affecting substantial rights requires reasonable likelihood that jury instruction significantly affects jury’s verdict); d 228, 231 (Minn. 1988) (concluding “ no reasonable likelihood that the jury somehow discredited the victim’s testimony relating to abuse occurring after [the limitations period] but credited her testimony concerning abuse occurring before [the limitations period]”).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Tyler Schwappach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Tyler Schwappach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that, when a statute of limitations was at issue, “there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury somehow discredited the victim’s testimony relating to abuse occurring after August 1, 1982, but credited her testimony concerning abuse occurring before August 1, 1982”).
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-31 (Minn.1988) (quotation omitted).
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc. 702 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2005
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc. 702 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2005
In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of K.A.S. 585 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
230 n. 3 (Minn.1988), questioned reliance on the portion of this court’s holding in Anderson addressing whether a defendant can be convicted based on a jury’s consideration of acts committed before and after the defendant turned 14.
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
State v. Murray 495 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1993
State v. Murray 495 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1993
State v. Zimmer 478 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Zimmer 478 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(relief from unobjected to trial error only if error is prejudicial and affects substantial rights).
State v. Glidden 455 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1990
State v. Glidden 455 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1990
The dissent agreed with the majority that it was error not to the instruct the jury on the 6-month issue but, concluded the error was nonprejudicial because there was “no reasonable likelihood” the verdict would have been different if the instruction had been given.
Wilson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 451 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
Illustrative Minnesota cases include: -31 (Minn.1988) (erroneous failure to caution jury not to base verdict of guilt on conduct occurring outside period of statute of limitations); (erroneous admission of in-custody statement given by accused after he had requested but been denied his constitutional
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
where the court applied the harmless error doctrine in reversing the court of appeals and reinstating a conviction.