Cited by

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

154 citing documents.

Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
403, which provides that “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.” Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
403, unfair prejudice results from “evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that defendant’s “tone of voice and inflection is evidence” that may be considered by factfinder).
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
or 6 needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Rule 403 favors admission of relevant evidence, “as the probative value of the evidence must be ‘substantially’ outweighed by prejudice.”
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[U]nfair prejudice is 1 Respondent elected to not file a brief on appeal.
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When balancing the probative value against the 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.’” d 635, 641 (Minn. 2006) ().
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In considering probative value, a district court should ask whether, and to what degree, the evidence “advances the inquiry.”
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antanie Devon Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gary George Spicer 853 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gary George Spicer 853 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Antanie Devon Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ptacek v. Earthsoils, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ptacek v. Earthsoils, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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 v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“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 v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
(undue prejudice); (relevance); (Spreigl evidence).
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
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.” (citation omitted).
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
See, -79 (Minn.2005) (stating that probative evidence that arouses the passions of the jury will be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by “illegitimate means” exceeds its probative value).
State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In assessing probative value of evidence, the supreme court noted in State v. Schulz that “[e]vi-dence is relevant and has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
Unfair prejudice results from “evidence [that] persuade[s] by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
When balancing the probative value against the 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 v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by