Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shoen, 598 N.W.2d 370.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(analyzing the harmless-error standard in the evidence-suppression context); n.2 (Minn. 1999) (“[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmless properly falls on the state.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. McInnis , n.2 (Minn. 1999) (“[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmless properly falls on the state.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jyrone White Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jyrone White Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
must be surely unattributable to the error.” (quotations omitted).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
While “[n]ot every judicial error automatically requires reversal” and “most constitutional errors can be harmless[,]” (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991)), the structural error doctrine applies to the constitutional right of self-representation, Bey, d at 521 (citing Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 295 (2017)).
State of Minnesota v. Buay David Duol Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Buay David Duol Minn. 2025
Dorsey, d at 250–53; Lopez, d at 119–20
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
must be surely unattributable to the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tyson Joe Hinckley Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tyson Joe Hinckley Minn. 2024
(citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Not every judicial error automatically requires reversal.” State v. Shoen
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
See, 379 (Minn.1999) (concluding that an improper restraint violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); 293 (Minn.1997) (concluding that admission of a statement obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment was harmless beyond a rea
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that an error is harmless when the guilty verdict rendered is “surely unattributable” to the error).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
But we have distinguished the use of restraints inside the courtroom from the use of restraints “during transport to or from the courtroom!,]” which we said “is likely to be seen for just what it is — standard law enforcement practice.”
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The Minnesota Supreme Court has generally “agreed with the [United States] Supreme Court that most constitutional errors can be harmless.” (quotation omitted); (stating that the United States Supreme Court has applied harmless-error analysis even to errors deemed presumptively prejudicial, such as a court official’s improper statements about the merits of a case in front of the jury).
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
377-78 n. 2 (Minn.1999).
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
For an error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict "must be ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.” ().
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-23 (Minn.2002) (using harmless-error-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in case that did not involve constitutional error); , 377-78 n. 2 (Minn.1999) (acknowledging discord in cases).
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
Generally, jurors’ knowledge that a defendant is in custody pending the *507 outcome of a first-degree murder trial is “likely to [have been] seen for just what it is- — standard law enforcement practice.” (referring to a jury seeing defendant in restraints during transport to and from court).
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
We have, however, stated that “[n]ot every judicial error automatically requires reversal,” and agreed with the Supreme Court that “most constitutional errors can be harmless.” (quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 306 , 111 S.Ct.
Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
377 n. 2 (Minn.1999) (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.