Cited by

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

282 citing documents.

State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
Under that analysis we “must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if the evidence had been admitted and the damaging potential of the evidence fully realized, an average jury (ie., a reasonable jury) would have reached the same verdict.”
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
When applying the harmless-error standard to the erroneous admission of evidence, we determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994).
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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 [fact-finder].”
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
Even if a district court abuses its discretion in excluding evidence, any error is harmless unless there is a “reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.”
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The erroneous admission of evidence is “harmless if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)); (applying the Post standard to the erroneous admission of a conviction for impeachment), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
at 292 ; (noting that evidence admitted in violation of a constitutional right is not harmless if there is “ ‘a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different’ ” ()).
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
But, when the ruling results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if “there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the evidence had been admitted.”
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
8 The “[e]rroneous admission of evidence that does not have constitutional implications is harmless if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)).
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
When evidence is erroneously excluded in violation of the defendant’s right to present a defense, a court inquires as to “whether, ‘assuming that the damaging potential of the [excluded evidence] were fully realized, * * * the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 683-84 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
The “[e]rroneous admission of evidence that does not have constitutional implications is harmless if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)).
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
102 n. 2 (Minn.1994) (stating that 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”).
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
Erroneous admission of evidence that does not have constitutional implications is harmless if there is no “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994).
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“If there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error.”
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
d at 198 ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)).
State v. Zulu 706 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Zulu 706 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Even 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.” , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994).
State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
While the district court admitted the relationship evidence without balancing its probative value against its prejudicial effect, appellant is not entitled to a new trial unless “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict[.]” *864 n. 2 (Minn.1994).
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)).
State v. Bobadilla 690 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2004