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. Byers 570 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
    Gunn, d at 138 ; Atkins, d at 647-48
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
    Rairdon, d at 323 ; -04 (Minn.1994); see also Minn. R.Crim.
  • State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    hether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict; * ⅜ ⅜ 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.” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)) (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
    -04 (Minn.1994); see also Minn.R.Crim.P.
  • State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
  • Sanders v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 547 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Peterson 533 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Peterson 533 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that “[hjarmless error impact analysis applies to the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s right to present evidence.” (citing Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 691 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Dillon 532 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Dillon 532 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1995
    (disproving of court of appeals’ suggestion at the other *559 extreme that the trial error is not harmless unless the evidence of defendant’s guilt is “conclusive”), , including n. 2 (Minn.1994) (carefully setting forth the harmless error impact standard to be applied when evidence is erroneously excluded as well as the standard to be applied when evidence is erroneously admitted).
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Bashaw 531 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Bashaw 531 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
    ole is to examine the entire trial record and determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict; * * ⅜ 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.” , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994).
  • State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
    As Justice Rogosheske said over 30 years ago in State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 83 , an appellate court has a “responsibility to review the record even though the assignments of error are inadequate * * , 673 n. 7 (Minn.1990) (quoting Tate, Sua Sponte Consideration on Appeal, in Appellate Judicial Opinions 128 (R.