DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676.

326 citing documents.

  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
    the district court admitted testimony that the defendant had abused the witness as a child over 25 years earlier when the defendant was the witness’s school principal.
  • State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    in which Spreigl evidence that the defendant had touched the “intimate parts” of a child in the past was held to be irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible, to support his argument that the Spreigl evidence here is irrelevant.
  • State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “A defendant who claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.”
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
    e”; (2) whether the state has “clearly indicate[d] what the evidence will be offered to prove”; (3) whether there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant participated in the prior act”; (4) whether the evidence is “relevant and material to the state’s case”; and (5) whether the probative value of the “evidence is outweighed by its potential prejudice to the defendant.” -86 (Minn.2006).
  • State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
    See, (reviewing evidence and affirming the trial court’s finding that Spreigl evidence was supported by clear and convincing evidence); -56 (Minn.1986) (reviewing evidence and holding that the trial court’s finding that Spreigl evidence was supported by clear and conv
  • State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
    Even if the evidence were admitted in error, this court must determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence sig *624 nificantly affected the verdict.”
  • State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
    Specifically, and require that trial courts consider the state’s need for the evidence before admitting evidence under section 634.20.
  • Ellingson v. BRADY CORPORATION 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006