Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534.

347 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Travis Clay Andersen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3 Swanson, d at 654 (quotation omitted) (-38 (Minn. 1978)) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 653 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Jones , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3 factors: (1) the impeachment value of the prior crime, (2) the date of the conviction and the defendant’s subsequent history, (3) the similarity of the past crime with the charged crime (the greater the similarity, the greater the reason for not permitting use of 3 These factors were outlined by the Minnesot a Supreme Court in State v. Jones , –38 (Minn. 1978).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
’” State v. Hill , (alteration in origina l) (quoting State v. Jones , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Five factors guide the exercise of a district court’s discretion under Rule 609(a).” ().
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(d 534, 538 (Minn. 1978)) (holding that the Jones factors still apply even though Jones was decided before the adoption of Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(4) the importance of the defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.’” (alteration in original) ().
State of Minnesota v. Kong Pheng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kong Pheng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(4) the importance of the defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.”
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Five factors guide the exercise of a district court’s discretion under Rule 609(a).” ().
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
609; -38 (Minn. 1978) (listing five factors to consider when evaluating the admissibility of a prior conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When evaluating whether prior convictions are admissible for impeachment, a -38 (Minn. 1978).”
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A –38 (Minn. 1978), when deciding whether prior convictions are admissible for impeachment purposes.
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-38 (Minn. 1978), the Minnesota Supreme Court articulated five factors to consider when evaluating the admissibility of prior convictions under rule 609(a)(1): 6 (1) the impeachment value of the prior crime, (2) the date of the convicti
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ralph Magnuson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ralph Magnuson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ct, a district court considers five factors: “(1) the impeachment value of the prior crime; (2) the date of the conviction and the defendant’s subsequent history; (3) the similarity of the past crime with the charged crime; (4) the importance of defendant’s testimony; and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To determine whether the probative value outweighs prejudicial effect, the district court, as required by caselaw, applied a
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ufficiency of the evidence argument, appellant also alleges that (1) the district court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that it must unanimously decide which of the violations he committed; (2) hearsay and overly prejudicial information about appellant were elicited by the prosecutor; (3) -38 (Minn. 1978), so as to allow appellant to be impeached with his prior offenses; and Bloomington on one occasion during the relevant time period.