Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99.

282 citing documents.

Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
An error is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” when, assuming the potential damage of the excluded evidence were fully realized, a reasonable jury “would have reached the same verdict.” Post , 512.
State of Minnesota v. Nazari Vasilich Cam Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazari Vasilich Cam Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The key question is whether “the witness personally knows what he or she is talking about and whether the testimony will be helpful to the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal when we conclude that an appellant has demonstrated “a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.” 17
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
exclusion, we “must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an average jury (i.e., a reasonable jury) would have reached the same verdict ‘if the evidence had been admitted and the damaging potential of the evidence fully realized.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If the district court erroneously admitted evidence, the reviewing court determines “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” n.2 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, n.2 (Minn. 1994) (explaining that district court’s erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if there is no “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict”).
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal when we conclude that an appellant has demonstrated “a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.”
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.2 (Minn. 1994) (explaining that, if the district court erred in admitting evidence, we must determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict”).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Even when testimony is inadmissible, we reverse only if “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” n.2 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If the district court erred in admitting evidence, the reviewing court determines “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” n.2 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if there is no “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” n.2 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
would have reached the same verdict.” (analyzing the impact of district court’s erroneous exclusion of defense evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
A conviction obtained through erroneous admission of evidence must be reversed if there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence “significantly affected the verdict.” n.2 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If the district court erred in admitting evidence, the reviewing court determines “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” n.2 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Conrad Kegg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Conrad Kegg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.2 (Minn. 1994) (“[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the 9 evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error.”).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that a witness would not be allowed to offer an opinion as to whether or not a defendant acted in self-defense); (concluding that a lay witness’s letter stating that the witness believed defendant’s actions did not fall within statutor