Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286.

218 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Scott Michael Popa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotation omitted); -92 (Minn. 1997) (setting forth the two different harmless-error review standards).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Michael Popa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Juarez , -93 (Minn. 1997) (explaining that, although the state’s case relied heavily on the victim’s testimony, the victim’s testimony was credible because it was consistent and partially corroborated).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
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
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
() (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
As support for the proposition that Robinson lacks grounding in the Minnesota Constitution, the State notes that we have never analyzed the “stop and clarify” rule as a protection under the state constitution, ( for the proposition that "stop and clarify” is a state constitutional protection).
State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
We have said “[a]n error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the guilty verdict actually rendered was ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.” Courtney, d at 80 ().
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In completing a “harmless error impact” analysis, the inquiry is not whether the jury could have convicted the defendant without the error, but rather, what effect the error had on the jury’s verdict, “and more specifically, whether the jury’s verdict is ‘surely unattributable’ to [the error].” ().
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
(holding that a claimed constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the verdict was surely unattributable to the error), we did not specify whether this reference was limited to the alleged due process right or whether it also applied to the erroneous admission of statements made
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
-91 (Minn.1997), Pearson claims that “allowing the jury to hear [his] statement about his desire for an attorney violated well-settled law that the state cannot use a defendant’s exercise of his right to counsel against him.” We agree.
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “[i]f the verdict rendered is ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.”
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “[i]f the verdict actually rendered [is] surely unattributable to the error.”
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
We have said, “A defendant’s choice to exercise his constitutional right to counsel may not be used against him at trial.” (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 468 n. 37, 86 S.Ct.
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hakala 763 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
If the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
On appeal, and Townsend v. State (Townsend II), which were decided after El-Shabazz’s conviction, applied a “stricter” standard for evaluating harmless error.
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
Indeed, in State v. Juarez, we said that "overwhelming evidence of guilt is a factor, often a very important one, in determining whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error has no impact on the verdict.” ("The final factor in our harmless error analysis is the strength of the ‘other evidence’ against Wright * * *.”).
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007