Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2019 0 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. Postgreen2 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 2014See State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99 , 102 n.2 (Minn. 1994) (“[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the 9 evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error.”). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Boltegreen2 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 1997In State v. Bolte, we reviewed the role of the appellate court in applying the harmless error analysis: “to examine the entire trial record and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict; * * * if 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.” 530 N.W.2d 191, 198 (Minn.1995) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99 , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1 | 2 | 4 |
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 sentence1994The trial judge is in the best position to make that determination; therefore, I dissent in part. *105 NOTES [1] Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 431-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059-60 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217, 224 (Minn. 1988). [2] It is when dealing with a claim of erroneous admission of evidence that the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict; to put it another way, if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the ev | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schneble v. Florida
green
2 sentences1994The trial judge is in the best position to make that determination; therefore, I dissent in part. *105 NOTES [1] Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 431-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059-60 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217, 224 (Minn. 1988). [2] It is when dealing with a claim of erroneous admission of evidence that the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict; to put it another way, if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the ev 1994The trial judge is in the best position to make that determination; therefore, I dissent in part. *105 NOTES [1] Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 431-32 , 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059-60 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217, 224 (Minn. 1988). [2] It is when dealing with a claim of erroneous admission of evidence that the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict; to put it another way, if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the ev | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.