DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. DeZeler, 41 N.W.2d 313.

161 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    () (noting that “time of death” may be relevant issue on which to admit “gruesome pictures of the victim’s body”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
    " Hurd , d at 30 (quoting State v. DeZeler , 230 Minn. 39 , , 318 (1950) ).
  • State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Diamond, 308 8 Minn. at 449, d at 99; cf. State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47, (permitting admission of photographs into evidence at trial if relevant to a material issue, even though the photographs were vivid or shocking, or they “incidentally tend[ed] to arouse passion or prejudice”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted); State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 45, (“Where one party introduces inadmissible evidence, he cannot complain if the court permits his opponent in rebuttal to introduce similar inadmissible evidence.”) Therefore, there was no error, much less plain error, in the prosecutor questioning a witness about matters previously ex
  • Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted); State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 45, (“Where one party introduces inadmissible evidence, he cannot complain if the court permits his opponent in rebuttal to introduce similar inadmissible evidence.”); (noting that interrogation about prior convictions should b
  • State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
    That said, unlike the concurrence, we do not find State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 45 , helpful in choosing between the Sixth Circuit’s analysis in Cromer and the Tenth Circuit's analysis in Lopez-Medina.
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
    State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46
  • State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
    Photographs are admissible whenever they “accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words” and are not rendered inadmissible merely because they “incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice.” State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46 , reh’g denied, (Minn. March 6, 1950) (emphasis omitted).
  • State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
    The standard for the admissibility of photographs was set forth in State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , : Photographs are admissible as competent evidence where they accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a verbal description * ⅜ * provided they are relevant to some material issue; and they are not ren
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
    (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , ).
  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
    We established the standard for admissibility of photographs in State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , which held: Photographs are admissible as competent evidence where they accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a *468 verbal description of objects and conditions, provided they are relevant to some material i
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
    State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , 46—47, -19 (1950).
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
    Evidence of an experiment conducted out of the presence of the jury is admissible if the experiment is “made under conditions and circumstances substantially similar to those existing in the case at issue.” State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 49
  • State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
    See State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 44-45 , -18 (Minn.1950) (finding a death certificate admissible as evidence although it would otherwise be inadmissible but for the opposing party opening the door by initiating questioning which cast doubt upon the qualification of the coroner).
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    See State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 45 , (holding “[wjhere one party introduces inadmissible evidence, he cannot complain if the court permits his opponent in rebuttal to introduce similar inadmissible evidence”); see, -35 (Minn.1980) (permitting admission of evidence of defendant’s refu
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
    State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , Friend, d at 544 .
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
    The standard for the admissibility of photographs was set by this court in State v. De Zeler, 230 Minn. 39 , which held: Photographs are admissible as competent evidence where they accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a verbal description of objects and conditions, provided they are relevant to some material issue
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
    The standard for the admissibility of photographs was set by this court in State v. De Zeler, 230 Minn. 39 , as follows: [I]t is within the trial court’s discretion to admit photographs, even ghastly ones, so *565 long as they show something that a witness could describe and are material to some relevant issue.
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
    The rule on the admission of photos was set forth in State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , : Photographs are admissible as competent evidence where they accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a verbal description * * * provided they are relevant to some material issue; and they are not ren
  • State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
    State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47
  • State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
    State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , see also Hummel, d at 74 ;.
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    403; State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 40, 46-47 , ).
  • Dunn v. State 486 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
  • Dunn v. State 486 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1992
    State v. De Zeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , (emphasis in original).