Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Malone v. Stephenson, 102 N.W. 372.

26 citing documents.

State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
See, Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , .
State v. Gress 84 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1957
State v. Gress 84 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1957
Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , .
State v. Silvers 40 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1950
State v. Silvers 40 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1950
Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , ; Buel v. State, 104 Wis.
State v. Friend 191 N.W. 926 Minn. 1923
State v. Pearson 189 N.W. 404 Minn. 1922
State v. Nelson 181 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
State v. Nelson 181 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
And in Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , , it was said that the permitted discretion “should not go so far as to sanction an attempt to discredit a witness by innuendo instead of competent evidence.” The cross-examination of the defendant was prolonged.
State v. Taylor 175 N.W. 615 Minn. 1920
State v. Taylor 175 N.W. 615 Minn. 1920
The questions asked and persistently urged so remotely affected the defendant’s credibility and were so likely to be applied by the jury unfavorably to him in their consideration of the issue involved and not restricted to their proper scope that a new trial should be had- Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , ; Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86 , ; State v. McCoy, 112 Minn. 424 , ; Petruschke v. Kamerer, 131 Minn. 320 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Petruschke v. Kamerer 155 N.W. 205 Minn. 1915
Petruschke v. Kamerer 155 N.W. 205 Minn. 1915
Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , .
State v. McCoy 128 N.W. 465 Minn. 1910
State v. McCoy 128 N.W. 465 Minn. 1910
Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , .
State v. Fournier 122 N.W. 329 Minn. 1909
State v. Fournier 122 N.W. 329 Minn. 1909
Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , ; Buel v. State, 104 Wis.
State v. Phillips 117 N.W. 508 Minn. 1908
State v. Phillips 117 N.W. 508 Minn. 1908
The rule is stated in Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , , as follows: “The extent to which a witness may be cross-examined as to matters not relevant to the issue, for the purpose of affecting his credibility, rests largely in the discretion of the trial court.
Gracz v. Anderson 116 N.W. 1116 Minn. 1908
Gracz v. Anderson 116 N.W. 1116 Minn. 1908
§ 770; Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463 ; Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , .
State v. Quirk 112 N.W. 409 Minn. 1907
State v. Quirk 112 N.W. 409 Minn. 1907
Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463 ; Alward v. Oakes, 63 Minn. 190 , ; Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , .
State v. Peterson 108 N.W. 6 Minn. 1906
State v. Peterson 108 N.W. 6 Minn. 1906
Within the rule laid down in Malone v. Stephenson, 94 Minn. 222 , , it was within the discretion of the court to restrict the cross-examination in this respect, and it was not abused.