Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Townsend, 546 N.W.2d 292.

55 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
defendant committed the charged act “or, worse,” promotes “preventive conviction” regardless of guilt, and (2) creates “the risk that a jury will convict for crimes other than those charged—or that, uncertain of guilt, it will convict anyway because a bad person deserves punishment” and “creates a prejudicial effect that outweighs ordinary relevance” (quotation omitted)); (holding that prolonged description of prior -crimes evidence was prejudicial because it improperly “inflame[d] the jury”); (
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
is one of prejudice.’ ” Profit, d at 460 ( (alterations in original)).
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
1 In 1995, Townsend pleaded guilty to a second-degree attempted murder 1 Our opinion in State v. Townsend (Townsend I), -95 (Minn. 1996), contains a detailed factual description of the murder and the evidence presented at (Footnote continued on next page.)
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
(“We have a natural hesitation to reverse a conviction on errors .
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But we will not reverse 4 where “the prejudicial evidence was only a small portion of that admitted,” and where the remaining evidence of guilt is “overwhelming.”
Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
are set forth in detail in State v. Townsend (Townsend I), -95 (Minn.1996).
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(noting that admission of explicit photographs was unfairly prejudicial because they inflamed the jury).
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
and appellant’s marriage relates to offenses or misconduct that were a part of the “immediate episode for which [a] defendant is being tried.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
Townsend v. State 767 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2009
Townsend v. State 767 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2009
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
We applied this harmless error test in State v. Townsend (Townsend I), (“‘Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’ does not mean there must be absolutely no doubt of guilt, rather it means that the weight of all the other evidence is such that it ‘justifies the verdict regardless of the erroneous admission * * ” (quoting Ford, d at 227 )).
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
(“Townsend III ”); (“Townsend //”); -95 (Minn.1996) (“Townsend I ”).
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
Criticized State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
In State v. Townsend, we said that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt means “that the weight of all the other evidence is such that it ‘justifies the verdict regardless of the erroneous admission * * *.’ ” ().
State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
( , 247 n. 2 (Minn.1985)).
State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
Townsend, d at 224 ; see also Juarez, d at 291 n. 6 ().
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403 provides that relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Appellant cites two cases, in support of his position that evidence of Holder’s dismemberment and the disposal of his remains were erroneously admitted.
Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
We held that certain of the evidence was inadmissible but its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, applying a standard that the error is harmless if the weight of all the other evidence is such that it “justifies the verdict regardless of the erroneous admission.” [hereinafter Townsend I ] (citation and quotation omitted).
State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Kates 610 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2000
State v. Kates 610 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2000
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
But “the ultimate question in a severance claim * ⅜ * is one of prejudice.” (quoting United States v. Foote, 920 F.2d 1395, 1401 (8 th Cir.1990), cert.
Townsend v. State 582 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1998
Townsend v. State 582 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1998
The facts surrounding the murder are set forth in this court’s -95 (Minn.1996).
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998