DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Matthews, 221 N.W.2d 563.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    (observing that jury’s acquittal of defendant on one charge suggested that prosecutor’s improper argument did not substantially influence jury’s thinking).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    ted, evidence of a specific act is admissible only to show that a defendant reasonably feared great bod ily harm, provided that the defendant proves that he knew of the specific act at the time of the alleged offense,” and “where commonsense indicates that these acts could legitimately affect a defendant’s apprehensions,” State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Evidence of speci fic acts of violence is admissible “where commonsense indicates that these acts could legitimately affect a defendant’s apprehensions.” State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134
  • State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
    Evidence of specific acts of violence is admissible “where commonsense indicates that these acts could legitimately affect a defendant’s apprehensions.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 135–36
  • State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
    See State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 136 , (jury’s acquitting defendant of first degree murder and finding him guilty only of lesser offense indicates jury was not prejudicially influenced by improper closing argument).
  • State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133 , (no abuse of discretion in excluding a psychologist’s expert opinion testimony whether defendant feared for his life when he shot the victim).
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Bland, d at 383 ; Taylor, d at 619-20 ; State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134
  • State v. Willis 362 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Willis 362 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 135
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
    See State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
    Later, in State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133 , we held that evidence of a specific act of violence is admissible to prove that the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm, provided that the defendant knew about the prior act of violence.
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
    Recently, in State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134 , the rule enunciated in the Keaton decision was expanded to allow the admission into evidence of specific acts of violence by the victim on the issue of whether the defendant was placed in reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm: “In this case the issue is whether evidence of a
  • State v. Davis 233 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Davis 233 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1975
    State v. Hanson, 289 Minn. 103, 107 , State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493 , State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133