Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sharich, 209 N.W.2d 907.

54 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The rule of law is well established that an examining attorney who enquires into collateral matters on cross-examination, including those matters relating to the witness’s credibility, is bound by the answers he receives.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that by voluntarily testifying on his own behalf, a defendant opens up the issue of only his credibil ity).
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[C]haracter attacks [are] improper during a prosecutor’s closing argument.” see State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23, (“By voluntarily testifying in his own behalf, the accused 9 opens up only the issue of his credibility, not his general character.”); see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
404(a)(1) (2014); State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23
State v. Fellegy 819 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Fellegy 819 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
“By voluntarily testifying in his own behalf, the accused opens up only the issue of his credibility, not his general character.” State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. *790 19, 23
State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23 , (noting prosecution may not attempt to establish bad character of defendant until defendant puts own good character at issue).
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
The cross-examiner is not permitted [to introduce] collateral matters to prove facts contradicting the answers, even if they are false.” State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 24
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
“[T]he prosecution may not attempt to establish the bad character of the defendant until the defendant has put that character in issue by offering evidence of good character.” State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23 , (citations omitted).
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See State v. Shariah, 297 Minn. 19, 23-24 , State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168, -81 (1962).
Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
As stated in State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , : It is well settled that the prosecution may not attempt to establish the bad character of the defendant until the defendant has put that character in issue by offering evidence of good character.
State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 26
State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23 , (defendant’s denial he had used drugs did not place character in- issue; drug use not an element of the charged offense).
State v. Blair 402 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Blair 402 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23
State v. Sobocinski 395 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sobocinski 395 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“By voluntarily testifying in his own behalf, the accused opens up only the issue of his credibility, not his general character.” Moreover, “[a] general denial by the defendant that he did a particular kind of act is insufficient to put his character *130 into issue.” (quoting State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23 , ).
State v. Nylund 371 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Nylund 371 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
at 170 , d at 82 ; State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23 , (denial by defendant that he did a particular kind of act is insufficient to put his character into issue).
State v. Burns 335 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1983
State v. Burns 335 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1983
1 State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , which is relied upon by defendant, is not in point.
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , Fed.R.Evid.
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , 181 N.W.
State v. Stewart 276 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
State v. Stewart 276 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
E. g., (per curiam); State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
State v. Widell 258 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1977
State v. Widell 258 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1977
State v. Dick, Minn., State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19
State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
In State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23 , we considered the use of character evidence for impeachment and stated: “ * * * It is well settled that the prosecution may not attempt to establish the bad character of the defendant until the defendant has put that character in issue by offering evidence of good character.
State v. Dick 253 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1977
State v. Dick 253 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1977
State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19
State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
State v. Johnson 239 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1976
State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , State v. White, supra.
City of Minneapolis v. Buschette 240 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1976
City of Minneapolis v. Buschette 240 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1976
This notion that the defense of selective enforcement is not limited to regulatory provisions was further expanded by our decision in State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
*403 See, State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19