Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Lynch 443 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Lynch 443 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larsen 442 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larsen 442 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Balancing probative value and prejudice under rule 609 -38 (Minn.1978).
Marriage of Bruner v. Bruner 429 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Bruner v. Bruner 429 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Axford 409 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Axford 409 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Case 412 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Case 412 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Porter 411 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Porter 411 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-38 (Minn.1978) (setting out factors to consider in determining whether the probative value of conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect).
State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lowmaster 406 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lowmaster 406 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
we find no abuse of discretion.
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johanson v. State 404 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In determining whether to restrict the use of such a conviction, -38 (Minn.1978).
Johanson v. State 404 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See also Duke, d at 515 ; -40 (Minn.1978).
State v. French 402 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. French 402 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Under the factors set *805 we find no abuse of discretion.
State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Meech 400 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Meech 400 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling that Meech’s 1984 conviction for intra-familial sexual abuse in the second degree was admissible if Meech testified.
State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fox 396 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fox 396 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
and determined that the kidnapping conviction was admissible to impeach appellant if he testified.
Holmes v. State 394 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
609(a)(1) (1986); (five factors used to balance probative value against prejudicial effect).
Holmes v. State 394 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Widell 393 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Widell 393 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
609(a)(1) (1986); -38 (Minn.1978).
State v. Hernandez 393 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hernandez 393 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
609(a) we find no abuse of discretion.
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
we find no abuse of discretion.
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by