Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Turnage v. State, 708 N.W.2d 535.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Baker, III Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Baker, III Minn. 2024
In doing so, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.” –46 (Minn. 2006); see also Boitnott, d at 533 n.2 (stating that “[i]n keeping with the presumption of innocence, trial courts should resolve all doubts as to the legitimacy of a self-defense claim in favor of the defendant”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
see also Turnage 11 v. State, (discussing standard of review for objection based in foundation).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 317, 320 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Holt v. State , (hearsay); (foundation).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If a defendant meets his burden with supporting evidence, “[the] tri al court’s refusal to give a jury instruction constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Warehouse, Inc., n. 9 (Minn. 1982), both of which were cited in Yoeun.
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The district court has broad discretion over the admissibility of evidence, and the standard of review for the adequacy of foundation with respect to the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he standard of review for the adequacy of foundation with respect to the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.”
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
State v. Turnage Turnage I)
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
3 To be adequate, “corroborating evidence must link or connect the defendant to the crime and must point to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
See, see also Horning, d at 298 ; Minn. R. Evid.