DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

282 citing documents.

  • State v. Bobadilla 690 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    If the trial court has abused its discretion 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. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    . (reversing based on cumulative effect of trial errors).
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
    (quoting State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 83 , ).
  • State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Carroll 639 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Carroll 639 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    * * * What is relevant in harmless error impact analysis is how strong the evidence was, not whether it was ‘sufficient,’ ”); , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994) (“[W]hen dealing with a claim of erroneous admission of evidence * * * the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict * * *.”).
  • State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (stating that error is harmless if reviewing court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, even if potential of excluded evidence was fully realized, jury would have reached same verdict).
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (quotation and citations omitted).
  • Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Muehlhauser v. Erickson 621 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    see also Holweger v. Great N. Ry., 269 Minn. 83, 95 , (finding that the trial court did not err in excluding employee’s opinion on the condition of an automatic coupler involved in an accident where employee did not have personal knowledge of the coupler).
  • Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (stating where reasonable possibility verdict might have been different if evidence had been admitted, erroneous exclusion of evidence is prejudicial).
  • State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
    (cautioning prosecutor against repeating improper arguments on retrial).
  • State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    When the erroneous admission does not implicate constitutional rights, we will reverse if there is “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994).
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
    *368 D. The Trial Court’s Exclusion o f Defense Evidence The erroneous exclusion of evidence is grounds for reversal unless “the reviewing court [is] satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if the [excluded] evidence had been admitted and the damaging potential of the evidence fully realized, an average jury (i.e., a reasonable jury), would have reached the same verdict.” (footnote omitted).
  • Kvenvold v. Freeborn County Sheriff's Dept. 589 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1999