Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dillon, 532 N.W.2d 558.

25 citing documents.

Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-56 (Minn. App. 1995); remanded on other grounds, State v. Soto, No. C3-95-577, 1996 WL 44802, at *2-3 (Minn. App. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, the stronger the evidence of guilt, the less likely that any error is prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Such evidence is not probative of the accused’s guilt and may give rise to the prejudicial inference that, because the accomplice is guilty, so is the accused.” remanded on other grounds
State v. Boettcher 931 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2019
State v. Boettcher 931 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2019
See Johnson v. City of Minneapolis , , 115 (Minn. 2003) (explaining that when the court of appeals has applied *382 an improper standard, "we generally would either proceed to apply the correct standard or remand to the court of appeals for application of the proper standard"); see also State v. Kates , , 631 (Minn. 2000) ; State v. Dillon , , 559 (Minn. 1995) (order).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Cermak , remanded on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that an error is less likely to be prejudicial if the evidence of guilt is strong).
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
See, ("What is relevant in harmless error impact analysis is how strong the evidence was, not whether it was 'sufficient.'
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
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
(“[Tjhe mere fact that the evidence of guilt was ‘sufficient’ means nothing.
State v. King 622 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2001
State v. Keehn 554 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Keehn 554 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(reversing restitution award to police agency’s Drug Task Force because the agency was neither a natural person nor a corporation for purposes of statutory restitution), remanded on other grounds, (reversing restitution award to the Missing Children’s Fund because the fund was not a victim of defendant’s crime), review denied (Minn. June 15, 1994).
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Wallace 545 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Wallace 545 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In support of his position, rev’d on other grounds