Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But LaRose argued at trial and argues on appeal that neither his 9 own prior felony convictions nor those of the state’s
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When making this determination, : (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 permit
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
before deciding to admit the evidence.
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(listing five factors that the district court must consider in determining whether to admit impeachment evidence against a defendant).
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(4) the importance of the 3 defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.’” (alteration in original) ().
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
and ruled that all three convictions were admissible.
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
District courts must determine on the record whether the probative value of the impeachment evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, : “(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 the defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.” Hill, d at
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
Five factors guide the exercise of a district court’s discretion under Rule 609(a): “(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 the defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.”
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
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 the prior crime to impeach), (4) the importance of defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.” Ihnot, d at 586 ().
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
-38 (Minn.1978), we set forth five factors to be considered in determining whether the probative value of impeachment evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.
State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008