DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

218 citing documents.

  • State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
    For an error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict "must be ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.” ().
  • State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
    As we have previously stated, “[T]hat the evidence [is] sufficient, or even overwhelming, does not mean that the error was necessarily harmless.” Caulfield, d at 316 ().
  • State v. Lemieux 726 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2007
  • Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
  • Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
    291 n. 6 (Minn.1997); see also Townsend III, d at 219 .
  • State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
    Any error in the exclusion of evidence is harmless “ ‘if the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” ().
  • Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
  • Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
    We recently applied harmless error analysis to Crawford error and found such error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if “the guilty verdict actually rendered was ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.” -80 (Minn.2005) ().
  • State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    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. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
  • Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
  • Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    4 Notwithstanding the erroneous admission of evidence obtained from the freezer, appellant’s convictions nonetheless may stand so long as they were “surely unattributable to the error.” -92 (Minn.1997) (quotation omitted) (error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
    If the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ().
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • In Re the Welfare of T.J.C. 670 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of T.J.C. 670 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    The supreme court reversed and remanded this court’s determination on the issue of harmless error, and we now consider whether the adjudication of delinquency is consistent with the harmless error stan *631
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
    1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), for harmless error impact analysis); (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.K. 667 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.K. 667 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In the Matter of Welfare of Tjc 667 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 2003
  • In the Matter of Welfare of Tjc 667 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 2003
    for further review of the decision of the court of appeals be, and the same is, granted; (2) that the decision of the court of appeals be, and the same is, reversed for reconsideration of the harmless error analysis; and (3) : whether the adjudication of delinquency was surely unattributable to the error.
  • State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
  • State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
    If the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
    “The relevant standard for determining harmless error is whether the jury’s verdict is ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.” ().
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
    If the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    See, (stating overwhelming evidence of guilt critical factor in determining impact of error on verdict).
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002