Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larson, 389 N.W.2d 872.

54 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(noting this court considers the strength of the state’s case during harmless-error analysis).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 872, 875 (Minn. 1986).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 872, 875 (Minn. 1986).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If the district court erroneously excludes defense character evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense, “the decision will not be reversed if it is found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citing State v. Larson , ); see also Pak, d at 628 (“We will not reverse a district court’ s exclusion of defense character evidence if our examination of the record satisfies us beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would not have acquitted even if it h ad t
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Lamonthe White Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Lamonthe White Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Constitutional “error will be found prejudicial if there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that a witness would not be allowed to offer an opinion as to whether or not a defendant acted in self-defense); (concluding that a lay witness’s letter stating that the witness believed defendant’s actions did not fall within statutory definition of crimi *318 nal sexual conduct was inadmissible under Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
We recognize that “[c]onstitutional error is not reversible error, however, if it is found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citations omitted).
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A constitutional error “will be found prejudicial if there is ‘a reasonable possibility’ that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”
State v. Grunig 660 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2003
State v. Grunig 660 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2003
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Wildenberg 573 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1998
State v. Wildenberg 573 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1998
Applying our test for prejudicial error — “error will' be found prejudicial if there is ‘a reasonable possibility 1 that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction,” — we conclude that the trial court error in denying discovery of the journals and limiting cross-examination regarding them was clearly prejudicial because their exclusion from evidence could well have contributed to the conviction.
State v. Grayson 546 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1996
State v. Grayson 546 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1996
Constitutional error is not reversible error where the error is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Larson, *739
State v. Washington 521 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1994
State v. Washington 521 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1994
1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967)
State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Evidentiary errors may require reversal where there is “ ‘a reasonable possibility’ that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The trial court has broad discretion in making evidentiary rulings, and this court will reverse the trial court only if it abused its discretion.
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Trial courts have “broad discretion to make evi-dentiary rulings.”
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
We are also mindful that “[cjonsti-tutional error is not reversible error, however, if it is found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citations omitted).
State v. Carpenter 447 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Carpenter 447 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ANALYSIS Generally, “[a] trial court has broad discretion to make evidentiary rulings,” and absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court’s ruling will stand.
State v. Kroshus 447 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Kroshus 447 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
(citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
(citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Skjefte 428 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Skjefte 428 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
It is similar to the complainant’s held properly excluded, which stated the defendant’s conduct was not so serious as to fit the criminal sexual conduct statute.
State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated: Evidence of the past sexual conduct of a criminal sexual conduct complainant with a defendant may be introduced when the evidence is shown to be material and where its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986