Cited by

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

218 citing documents.

State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
“ Tf the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ().
Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
291 n. 6 (Minn.1997), we acknowledged that we had on occasion previously “misstated the significance of the strength of the evidence of guilt in harmless error analysis,” citing as an example Townsend I. Townsend then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the district court treated as a petition for po
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
(“If the verdict rendered is ‘surely unattributable’ to the error, then the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and the conviction stands.”).
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
Regarding review for harmless error, a finding of constitutional error does not require a new trial if the state can show that the verdict actually rendered was “surely unattributable to the error”'— that is, “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” -92 (Minn.1997).
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
In deciding this issue, the question we must answer is “ ‘[w]hat effect did the jury’s hearing [the defendant’s] statement ⅜ ⅜ * actually have on the guilty verdict rendered?’ ” ().
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 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
(stating conviction may stand if erroneously admitted statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. King 622 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2001
State v. King 622 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2001
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
Scales v. State 620 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2001
Scales v. State 620 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2001
See id.; (holding that a claimed constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where verdict was “surely unattributable” to the error) ().
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“In our analysis, we look to the record as a whole.”
State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
Having concluded that the admission of Day’s statement was error, we must next answer the question, “What effect did the jury’s hearing [the defendant’s] statement * * * actually have on the guilty verdict rendered?”
State v. Kates 610 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2000
State v. Kates 610 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2000
The court of appeals, relying on this court’s based its decision on its conclusion that the district court’s error was not harmless.
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
Followed State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
-05 (Minn.1998) (acknowledging the federal “clear and unequivocal” standard of Davis but reaffirming that the Robinson approach applied to claims under the Minnesota Constitution); (discussing Davis yet noting that we adopted a more protective rule in Robinson).
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
However, because the verdict rendered was “surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
(stating that "[i]f the verdict rendered is 'surely unattributable’ to the error, then the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and the conviction stands”).