Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Henry v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 379 N.W.2d 498.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“[I]n light of the other available evidence with which the defendants were able to impeach, this error [of withholding discoverable evidence from the defense] is harmless.”).
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-27 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the defendant could not demonstrate prejudice stemming from his claimed Brady violation because “the evidence in question was not admissible”); d 498, 506 (Minn. 1985) (finding discovery violation harmless because most of the 20 undisclosed evidence would have been inadmissible).
Stephen Carl Allwine, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
When we review severance motions, we make “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (noting that substantial prejudice is not evident where, for example, codefendants “did not even attempt to place the blame on each other”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
recognized the ability of juries in joint trials to separate evidence that inculpates only one defendant from evidence that inculpates both.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
recognized the ability of juries 7 in joint trials to separate evidence that inculpates only one defendant from evidence that inculpates both.”
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
(finding discovery violation harmless when the undisclosed evidence would have been inadmissible).
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
(“[I]n light of the other available *481 evidence with which the defendants were able to impeach, this error [withholding discoverable evidence from the defense] is harmless.”).
Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
A more detailed version of the facts can be found in this court’s (affirming the conviction of Gustafson's co-defendant-Guy Hathaway).
In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
See, (using the expression “prior record” to refer to appellant’s criminal history); (referring to the “prior record of convictions” referenced in Minn. R.Crim.
Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
In reviewing a court’s pretrial decision regarding joinder, we make “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.” ().
State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
This court reviews district court rulings on joinder of defendants by making, “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.” ().
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
In reviewing a district court’s pretrial severance decisions, we make “ ‘an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.’ ” DeVerney, d at 842 ().
Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
In reviewing a trial court’s decision regarding the joinder of defendants, we make “an independent inquiry into any substantial prejudice to defendants that may have resulted from their being joined for trial.”
State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hathaway v. State 434 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1989
where we affirmed petitioner’s conviction on direct appeal.
State v. Myers 413 N.W.2d 122 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gustafson 379 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1985
Paul on October 24, 1982

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by