Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Clobes, 422 N.W.2d 252.

31 citing documents.

MJ aka Elissa Wall, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
see State v. Jaros , , 472 (Minn. 2019) (“ We generally will not reverse a verdict even when improper testimony is presented to the jury unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 252, 255 (Minn. 1988).
State of Minnesota v. Royale Romeo Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Royale Romeo Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 252, 255 (Minn. 1988).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A new trial should be grante d based on a discovery violation if “there is a reasonable probability that, had the e vidence been disclosed to the defense, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” d 252, 255 (Minn. 1988).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
337 (Minn. 2006) (ruling no error occurred where disclosure of defendant’s past drug use was inadvertent and “[m]ore importantly, events that occurred later in trial eliminated any prejudice”); (declining to grant mistrial absent a showing that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different); (discerning no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial where prejudice was minimal).
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
State v. Wildenberg 573 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1998
State v. Spann 574 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1998
State v. Spann 574 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1998
State v. Peterson 533 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Peterson 533 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
This court should not order a new trial “[i]f there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.”
State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
reh’g denied (Minn., May 9, 1988).
State v. Moore 493 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Moore 493 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
3375, 3383-84 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), that a reviewing court should not order a new trial to remedy a discovery violation “[i]f there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.”
State v. Ramos 492 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Ramos 492 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Kaiser 486 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1992
State v. Kaiser 486 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1992
For a case following the usual test of harmless error in this context
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
ases include: -31 (Minn.1988) (erroneous failure to caution jury not to base verdict of guilt on conduct occurring outside period of statute of limitations); (erroneous admission of in-custody statement given by accused after he had requested but been denied his constitutional right to counsel); (prosecutor’s failure to disclose evidence that might have been used to impeach key prosecution witness); (erroneous denial of jury requests for rereading of testimony); -48 (Minn.1988) (prosecutor's imp