Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

State v. Ward 349 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
identified five factors to consider in determining admissibility under Rule 609(a)(1): “...
State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
The rule further requires, however, “that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.” defendant Amos argues that the assaultive nature of his convictions has little bearing on his credibility and that the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value.
Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
State v. Duke 335 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1983
State v. Duke 335 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1983
(former CRIMJIG 7.08 was not mandated).
State v. Austin 332 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1983
State v. Austin 332 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1983
CRIMJIG 7.08 (1982 pocket part at 15)
State v. Oquist 327 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1982
State v. Oquist 327 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1982
State v. Lee 322 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
State v. Lee 322 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
State v. Darveaux 318 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1982
State v. Darveaux 318 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1982
State v. Walker 310 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1981
State v. Walker 310 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1981
and other cases, we set forth the factors bearing on the exercise of that discretion.
State v. Bowser 307 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1981
State v. Bowser 307 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1981
The approach which the trial court should use in determining whether to restrict the use of such a
State v. Ware 306 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1981
State v. Ware 306 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1981
and other cases, the trial court did not err in its ruling.
State v. Gorham 306 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1981
State v. Gorham 306 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1981
(per curiam), we hold that the trial court did not err in its ruling.
State v. Kvale 302 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1981
State v. Kvale 302 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1981
we conclude that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in permitting the impeachment, and accordingly we must sustain the trial court’s ruling.
State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
State v. Burrows 295 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1980
State v. Knight 295 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1980
State v. Bettin 295 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1980
State v. Burrows 295 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1980
State v. Knight 295 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1980
we conclude that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in permitting the impeachment, and accordingly we must sustain the trial court’s ruling.
State v. Bettin 295 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1980
*546 in reversing a conviction because of the improper denial of a motion to limit use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes, we listed five key factors which the trial courts should consider in determining whether to restrict the use of a prior conviction other than one directly involving dishone
State v. Graffice 294 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1980
State v. Graffice 294 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1980
we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior convictions for impeachment purposes.
State v. Leecy 294 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1980
State v. Leecy 294 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1980
The applicable rule is Rule 609, R.Evid.
State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
State v. Lindsey 284 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
State v. Lindsey 284 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
Overall, the court’s rulings on evidentiary objections were fair and even-handed and could not have given the jury the impression that the court favored either the prosecution or the defense, see
Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979
Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979