Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903.

143 citing documents.

State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
See, -86 (Minn.2001); , 909 n. 4 (Minn.1996); see also Ideal Life Church of Lake Elmo, d at 315 (approving the use of a multifaceted test to determine whether an institution is a “church” for tax purposes).
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“A court, therefore, can neither inform a jury that a case must be decided, nor allow the jury to believe that a ‘deadlock’ is not an available option.” (citing State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , ).
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
We next turn to Cox’s argument that the district court erred when it instructed the jury to continue deliberating after the court received a note that the jury was “deadlocked.” We have said that we give district courts “considerable latitude in the selection of the language of the jury charge.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
to instruct the jury on the rules of law which they must apply in arriving at their verdict.” (Tomljanovich, J., concurring).
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
The State bears the burden of showing that the verdict in question was “surely unattributable to the error.” Id.
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“However, a finding of constitutional error in a criminal trial does not require a new trial if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.”
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.’ ” ().
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lushenko 714 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lushenko 714 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Error in admission of tainted pretrial identification “does not require a new trial if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.”
Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[A]ppellate courts must look to the basis on which the jury rested its verdict and determine what effect the error had on the actual verdict.”
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
A new trial is not required if “the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” (citation omitted).
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
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
Accordingly, when applying the Chapman harmless error test, we “look to the basis on which the jury rested its verdict and determine what effect the error had on the actual verdict.”
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “[i]f the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error.”
State v. Anderson 657 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Anderson 657 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
When applying the harmless error test, “appellate courts must look to the bases on which the jury rested its verdict and determine what effect the error had on the actual verdict.” (citation omitted).
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001