Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d 267.

132 citing documents.

State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
If the ruling involves constitutional error, however, the court must look to whether the error was harmless “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
State v. LeDOUX 770 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2009
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
This means we will reverse only if there is a reasonable possibility that without the error “the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant.”
State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
In arguing that an intent requirement should be read into the statute
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Coleman 731 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Coleman 731 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 421
Fedziuk v. Commissioner of Public Safety 696 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2005
Fedziuk v. Commissioner of Public Safety 696 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2005
See, (stating that due process ensures that a criminal defendant have the right to present the defendant’s version of facts through witness testimony); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“Consecutive sentencing of multiple felonies with multiple victims is permissive and within the broad discretion of the [district] court.” see also Minn. Sent.
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
Our requirement that such evidence have an inherent tendency to connect the other party with the crime “avoids the use of bare suspicion and safeguards the third person from indiscriminate use of past differences with the deceased.” ().