Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schulz, 691 N.W.2d 474.

154 citing documents.

Blue Earth County State of Minnesota v. Lee Wayne Young, Jr. Procaccini, J. Dissenting, Hudson, C.J., Thissen, J Minn. 2026
But evidence is not cumulative when it is “probative of material facts in ways unique and distinct from the other evidence in the case.”
Hennepin County State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lamon Johnson Moore, III, J Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Cristian Joel Mungia Figueroa Minn. Ct. App. 2026
403 are within the discretion of the district court, and will only be reversed for a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Richard Alan Quarles Minn. Ct. App. 2026
is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Robert Simmons Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Saavedra Amigon Minn. Ct. App. 2026
is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Samuel David Berg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Evidence “has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Shane Joseph Gross Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Shane Joseph Gross Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Desean James Solomon Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Tremaine Tavion Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark John Jenni Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Mark John Jenni Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A fact is relevant if, when taken alone or in connection of other facts, [it] warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.”
State of Minnesota v. Lamechtric Irving Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Probative Value Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Jamaal Terrance Tanna Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To reverse, “we must find actual prejudice to the defendant’s case.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Iron Thunder, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-79 (Minn. 2005) (“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” ).
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Devon Doby Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Luis Texta-Cipriano Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster Minn. 2025
Framed differently, we have said that evidence has probative value “if, when taken alone or in connection [with] other facts, [the evidence] warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. John Arland Kirst Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Justis David Harvey Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Devontae Harvey Minn. Ct. App. 2025
ir prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Terrell Joseph Salazar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” A district court does not abuse its discretion by admitting cumulative evidence that is “only marginally repetitive” and “highly probative.”
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Albert Christopher Juring Minn. Ct. App. 2024
12 Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Richard Buck Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Therefore, the evidence need only “warrant[] a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.”
State of Minnesota v. Delaney Rayshawn Burks Minn. Ct. App. 2024
401; (“Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”).
State of Minnesota v. Azzel Mickey Lee Foster Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Unfairly prejudicial evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” .
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Anthony Woodland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Anthony Woodland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Jesse Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
6 illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” d 474, 478-79 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Charles Kipp Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Unfairly prejudicial evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Charlene Marie Waldron Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Charlene Marie Waldron Minn. Ct. App. 2023
e 403 provides that relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Relevant evidence “has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Daniel McPheeters Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” -79 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[U]nfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” -79 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Gershone Gibbs Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Murdent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Unfair prejudice is “not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means.” d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Wayne Young Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” -79 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Latese Capree Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging ev idence, even severely damaging evidence; 8 rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Terrvante Rennicko Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely dama ging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, givi ng one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Beth Ellenberg Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellant has fail ed to demonstrate how the evidence in question is “unfair.” Instead, it is evidence from whic h a jury could have legitimately “drawn a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.”
Brian Ford Dowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But the correct analysis is “unfair prejudice,” which is not “merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alonzo Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Brandon William Bierbrauer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 474, 477 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Gonzalo Gallegos-Olivera Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When balancing the probative value against the potential prejudice, unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even seve rely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Jovan Hargrove Minn. Ct. App. 2019