Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534.
- State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
-
State v. Davis
735 N.W.2d 674
Minn. 2007
In making this argument, for determining the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s previous convictions and consider only the similarity of the past crime with the charged crime, the importance of the defendant’s testimony, and the centrality of the credibility issue.
- State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
-
State v. Flowers
734 N.W.2d 239
Minn. 2007
The district court heard arguments on the impeachment-by-prior-conviction issue, -38 (Minn.1978).
- State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
- State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
- State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-
State v. Meldrum
724 N.W.2d 15
Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
- State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Swanson
707 N.W.2d 645
Minn. 2006
When evaluating whether prior convictions are admissible for impeachment, a -38 (Minn.1978).
- State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
State v. Mitchell
687 N.W.2d 393
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-38 (Minn.1978) (establishing five factor test to determine whether to admit prior convictions).
- State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Wright 686 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
-
State v. Smith
669 N.W.2d 19
Minn. 2003
cretion and denied him a fair trial by allowing the state to present irrel *26 evant and prejudicial evidence of the dismemberment and disposition of Holder’s remains; (2) the court violated appellant’s right to a fair trial by permitting the state to introduce impeaching evidence of appellant’s (3) the evidence of premeditation for the first-degree premeditated murder charge was insufficient as a matter of law; (4) the evidence of kidnapping to support the conviction for first-degree murder whi
- State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. James
638 N.W.2d 205
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ihnot, d at 586 ( (“Jones factors”)).
- State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
State v. Hochstein
623 N.W.2d 617
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
To determine whether the probative value outweighs the 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 (the greater the similarity, the greater the reason for not permitting use of the prior crime to impeach), (4) the importanc
- State v. Ihnot 575 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1998
-
State v. Ihnot
575 N.W.2d 581
Minn. 1998
-38 (Minn.1978) as appropriate in considering whether the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effects of admitting a prior conviction for impeachment purposes.
- State v. Hofmann 549 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
State v. Hofmann
549 N.W.2d 372
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Gassler, d at 66 (-38 (Minn.1978)).
- State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
- State v. Sims 526 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1994
-
State v. Sims
526 N.W.2d 201
Minn. 1994
The trial court engaged in discretionary balancing — among many decisions — in ruling that the prior felony convictions could be used if defendant testified.
- State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
-
State v. Moorman
505 N.W.2d 593
Minn. 1993
sets forth the five factors a court should consider in determining whether the probative value of the prior conviction 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
- State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
-
State v. Gassler
505 N.W.2d 62
Minn. 1993
2 To determine whether the probative value of a prior conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect, : (1) the impeachment value of the prior conviction; (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. Thunberg 492 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1992
-
State v. Thunberg
492 N.W.2d 534
Minn. 1992
In determining whether to admit evidence of prior convictions under the first prong
- State v. Ross 491 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1992
-
State v. Ross
491 N.W.2d 658
Minn. 1992
3 . and the many cases following Jones in which we have given considerable deference to trial court rulings under Rule 609(a)(1).
- State v. Clark 486 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
State v. Clark
486 N.W.2d 166
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
- State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Lund 474 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Lund 474 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Schmitz v. Stransky 454 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Schmitz v. Stransky 454 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989