Cited by

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

154 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Travis Jerome Norcross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
28, 2012); -78 (Minn. 2005) (holding that a voicemail , left by a defen dant charged with several counts of murder, that said, “Man, it’s Kill [the defendant].
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kerrell Levell Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, gi ving one party an unfair advantage.”).
State of Minnesota v. Mariel Alexandra Grimm Minn. Ct. App. 2019
8 (2016) (defining “great bodily harm” as “bodily injury whic h creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm”); (defining evidence as probative “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry”).
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
State v. Schulz , , 478 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Minor, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When balancing the probative value against the potential prejudice, unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is 5 evidence that persuades , by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage .”
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Fuhol Rawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
more probable or less probable than it would be without the evi dence.”); (“Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Merrill Newlun Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Michael Strother Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6 “Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. Devell Eshawn Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damagi ng evidence; rather unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz , d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Pablo Torres, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Unfair prejudice “is not merely da maging evidence, even severel y damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. Clayton Francis Marshalek Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Unfair prejudice is not established where evidence is 13 simply highly damaging ; rather, unfair prejudice occurs when evidence “persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Marcellus Richmond Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Spreigl evidence is prejudicial by nature, but the balancing analysis for unfair prejudice focuses on whether the evidence “persuades by illegitimate m eans, giving one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz
State of Minnesota v. Steven David Schultz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Gilberto Guzman-Diaz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Timothy Cermak Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When we consider the balance between the probative value of evidence against its potential for prejudice, we note that unfair prejudice “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 v. Schulz , d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Kaiser Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Darnell McDaniels Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Unfair prejudice “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 v. Schulz , d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in so me degree, advances the inquiry.” State v. Schulz
Majinieke Vasha Thompson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When balancing probative value against potential prejudice, unfair prejudice “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. Tyler Manfred Lukat Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Unfair prejudice “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 v. Schulz
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Evidence is relevant and has probative valu e when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Matthew Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Alexander Houle Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rulings on “whe ther evidence is improperly cumulative[] are committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Marlin Morey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Unfair prejudice “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. Jason David Hoversten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Unfair prejudice “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 v. Schulz
State of Minnesota v. Galgalo Jarso Hache Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In balancing the probative value of Spreigl evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, unfairly prejudicial evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely d amaging evidence, ” but instead “is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
401 (noting.that “relevant evidence” is evidence with “any tendency to *275 make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence” (emphasis added)); (stating that evidence is relevant when it “warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Weldon Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Keith Eugene Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Unfair prejudice “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. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Todey Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
401 (defining relevant evidence); (stating that evidence is relevant “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. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[U]nfair prejudice ‘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.’” Bell, d at 641 ().
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The district court has a wide range of discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence.”
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015