Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 533 N.W.2d 35.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Lerma Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Lerma Minn. 2025
See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307–08 (1991); (affirming district court’s denial of an order barring retrial on the basis of double jeopardy after a reversal due to prosecutorial misconduct at trial, stating that “the double jeopardy clause in such circumstances [reversal on error] does not bar retrial”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.1 (Minn. 1995) (“If a defendant 21 obtains a reversal because of the insufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, then the double jeopardy clause clearly precludes further prosecution.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.1 (Minn. 1995) ( noting that double jeopardy bars further prosecution of a defendant whose conviction has been reversed because the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Bu t it is also well established that if a conviction is reversed based on trial error, the “defendant is entitled to a new trial, not to outright reversal of his conviction.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
n.1 (Minn. 1995) (“If a defendant obtains a reversal because of the insufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, then the double jeopardy clause clearly precludes further prosecution.”).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Brandon Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Brandon Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.1 (Minn. 1995) (noting retrial barred following reversal for insufficient evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
36 n. 1 (Minn. *270 1995).
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
36 n. 1 (Minn.1995) (noting that “[i]f a defendant obtains a reversal because of the insufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, then the double jeopardy clause clearly precludes further prosecution”).
State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
36 n. 1 (Minn.1995) (holding double jeopardy bars further prosecution of defendant whose conviction has been reversed because the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law).
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997