State v. Coonrod

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that appellate court cannot supply what the legislature has overlooked or deliberately omitted
• holding that failure to provide Spreigl notice was not harmless error
• stating that “penal statutes must be strictly construed, and all reasonable doubt about their meaning must be resolved in favor of the defendant”
• stating purpose of Minnesota’s 4 child-solicitation statute is “to prohibit any persuasive conduct by adults that might entice children to engage in sexual activity,” and therefore defendant could be liable for solicitation of fictitious child (quotation omitted)
• “The state must provide the defense with written pretrial notice of any evidence of other crimes or bad acts that it intends to present at trial . . . .”
• “The erroneous admission of [other- bad-acts] evidence can be harmless error if, based on a review of the entire trial record, there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).