20 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Larsongreen2 sentences2016Constitutional “error will be found prejudicial if there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Larson, 389 N.W.2d 872, 875 (Minn. 1986) (quotation omitted). 2004A constitutional error “will be found prejudicial if there is ‘a reasonable possibility’ that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Larson, 389 N.W.2d 872, 875 (Minn.1986). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences1995“A ruling is prejudicial and therefore reversible if there is a reasonable possibility the error complained of may have contributed to the conviction.” Id. 1991“A ruling is prejudicial and therefore reversible if there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of may have contributed to the conviction.” Id. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Loebachgreen2 sentences1997State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99 , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994); State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Mmn.1981). 1996State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Minn.1981). a. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fragagreen1 sentence2025An evidentiary error will not require reversal for a new trial unless the defendant establishes ‘a reasonable possibility that the error substantially affected the verdict.’ ” State v. Williams, 908 N.W.2d 362, 365 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State v. Fraga, 898 N.W.2d 263, 273 (Minn. 2017)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2025An evidentiary error will not require reversal for a new trial unless the defendant establishes ‘a reasonable possibility that the error substantially affected the verdict.’ ” State v. Williams, 908 N.W.2d 362, 365 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State v. Fraga, 898 N.W.2d 263, 273 (Minn. 2017)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nessgreen1 sentence2019State v. Bolte , 530 N.W.2d 191 , 198 (Minn. 1995). "[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error." State v. Post , 512 N.W.2d 99 , 102 n.2 (Minn. 1994) ; see also Ness , 707 N.W.2d at 691 (conducting a reasonable possibility analysis of the erroneous admission of bad-acts evidence and holding that there was no prejudice because the evidence merely "bolstered" the finding of guilt and "was not the critical push beyond a reasonable doub | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2016Conversely, “[i]f the record contains overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the statement was merely cumulative and could not have played a significant role in the jury’s conviction, it is harmless.” State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217, 224 (Minn. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltiergreen1 sentence2016State v. Peltier, 874 N.W.2d 792, 802 (Minn.2016). | 1 | 1 |
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Littlegreen2 sentences2016See Little, 851 N.W.2d, at 884-85 . 2016See Little, 851 N.W.2d at 884-85 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2015State v. Williams, 593 N.W.2d 227, 237 (Minn. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2011Under this test, “[a] constitutional error will be found prejudicial if there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Wright, 679 N.W.2d at 191 (quotation omitted). 2011“If, after reviewing the basis on which the jury rested its verdict, we conclude that the verdict was surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fratzkegreen2 sentences1991Id.; State v. Fratzke, 354 N.W.2d 402 , 409 *318 (Minn.1984). 1991Id.; State v. Fratzke, 354 N.W.2d 402, 409 (Minn.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1992Evidentiary errors may require reversal where there is “ ‘a reasonable possibility’ that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Larson, 389 N.W.2d 872, 875 (Minn.1986) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 1992Evidentiary errors may require reversal where there is “ ‘a reasonable possibility’ that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Larson, 389 N.W.2d 872, 875 (Minn.1986) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). | 3 | 1988–1992 |
State v. Post
green
2 sentences2019State v. Bolte , 530 N.W.2d 191 , 198 (Minn. 1995). "[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error." State v. Post , 512 N.W.2d 99 , 102 n.2 (Minn. 1994) ; see also Ness , 707 N.W.2d at 691 (conducting a reasonable possibility analysis of the erroneous admission of bad-acts evidence and holding that there was no prejudice because the evidence merely "bolstered" the finding of guilt and "was not the critical push beyond a reasonable doub 1997State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99 , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994); State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Mmn.1981). | 2 | 1997–2019 |
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge
green
1 sentence2023“An error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of may have contributed to the conviction.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Bolte
green
1 sentence2019State v. Bolte , 530 N.W.2d 191 , 198 (Minn. 1995). "[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error." State v. Post , 512 N.W.2d 99 , 102 n.2 (Minn. 1994) ; see also Ness , 707 N.W.2d at 691 (conducting a reasonable possibility analysis of the erroneous admission of bad-acts evidence and holding that there was no prejudice because the evidence merely "bolstered" the finding of guilt and "was not the critical push beyond a reasonable doub | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.