Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 521 N.W.2d 348.

105 citing documents.

State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
We have said that it is error for the State to elicit inadmissible character evidence and that “[questions by a prosecutor calculated to elicit or insinuate inadmissible and highly prejudicial character evidence and which are asked in the face of a clear trial court prohibition are not tolerable.”
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
“[E]vidence of threats to witnesses may be relevant in showing consciousness of guilt.”
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
State v. Haynes 725 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2007
State v. Haynes 725 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2007
(“The cumulative effect of these continuous references to witnesses’ fear was to create the inference that Harris was of bad character and had a propensity to commit crimes of violence.”).
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
Some examples are: eliciting inadmissible evidence, -54 (Minn.1994); alluding in argument to the defendant’s exercise of the right not to testify, -51 (Minn.1997), or to the defendant’s failure to call witnesses, misstating the presumption of innocence, Salitros, d at
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
Evidence of a threat made by the defendant against a witness may be relevant to show consciousness of guilt, and to explain a witness’s inconsistent statements, (quoting United States v. Thomas, 86 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.1996)).
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
(“the defendant is entitled to impeach the witness’ credibility by establishing the witness benefitted [sic] from the [government sponsored protection] program”).
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403 provides that relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Appellant cites two cases, in support of his position that evidence of Holder’s dismemberment and the disposal of his remains were erroneously admitted.
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
In support of this contention, -52 (Minn.1994).
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
352-53 n. 5 (Minn.1994) (questioning whether curative instruction would have prevented prejudice from repeated improper questioning).
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
Yang cites four cases in support of the proposition that gang-affiliation character evidence is inadmissible outside these three circumstances: Ferguson, d at 834 ; -52 (Minn.1994); rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
Budreau emphasizes, and we agree, that “[s]trong evidence of guilt does not — cannot—deprive a defendant of the right to a fair trial.”
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
While it is error for a prosecutor to persist in asking questions ruled improper or elicit evidence ruled inadmissible, our careful review of the record leads us to the conclusion that any inappropriate conduct here was inadvertent and surely did not contribute to the verdict.
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
354 n. 9 (Minn.1994) (noting that such isolated questions, to which objections are made, do not ordinarily constitute misconduct).
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
aphy, the admission of which would not corroborate any of the complainant’s testimony, could not be admitted to show the defendant’s propensity to sexually abuse children); People v. Bagarozy, 132 A.D.2d 225 , 522 N.Y.S.2d 848, 855 (1987) (holding the admission of NAMBLA affiliation was error because its only purpose was to demonstrate the defendant’s sexual tendencies); (finding evidence that the defendant masturbated while he looked at a picture of the victim was not relevant and, to establish
State v. Grayson 546 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1996
State v. Grayson 546 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1996
We conclude that there is no reasonable' doubt “the result would have been different if the evidence had not been admitted.” This is not a where we granted the defendant a new trial because he was denied a fair trial.
State v. Harris 533 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1995