Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cram, 718 N.W.2d 898.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); - 07 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. A. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see State v. Cram , d 898, 906 (Minn. 2006) (applying Strickland to claim of ineffective assistance regarding restitution).
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When an error does not implicate a constitutional right, we ask whether ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’” d 161, 189 (Minn. 2024) ( n.1 (Minn. 2006)).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.L.B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(applying Strickland to claim of ineffective assistance regarding restitution).
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
When an error does not implicate a constitutional right, we ask whether “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” n.1 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); d 898, 906-07 (Minn. 2006).
Randall Ferrell Decker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); d 898, 906-07 (Minn. 2006).
Alexander James Ray, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
, A21-0726 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that the defendant has the burden of proof on both prongs of an ineffective -assistance claim).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5 that counsel’s failure to submit a closing argument did not result in structural error); State v. Cram , -08 (Minn. 2006) (c oncluding that counsel’s failure to submit evidence or argument regarding restit ution did not result in structural error); see also Cooper v. State , (concluding that counsel’s failure to have a sign language interpreter present during some of their commu
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
16 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064; -07 (Minn. 2006) (applying Strickland).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Amos, d at 203 ; (stating that even if district court abuses its discretion, “the decision will not be reversed if it is found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (quotation omitted)).
A18-2039 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064 ; -07 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that even if the district court abuses its discretion, “the decision will not be reversed if it is found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Joseph Mahne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Steven Joseph Mahne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(d 807, 813 (Minn. 1989)).
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nor do his submissions overcome the “strong presumption” that counsel’s performance fell “within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” (quotation omitted).
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
See, , 904 n. 2 (Minn.2006) (concluding that in a prosecution of a husband for the murder of his wife, statements made by the wife to the husband were admissible).
Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
(internal quotation marks omitted).