Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tran, 712 N.W.2d 540.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Evidence of motive is relevant to show premeditation or intent.”).
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-70 (Minn. 2019); d 540, 550-51 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(discussing credit-card debt and financial problems as potential motive 16 for murder); -01 (Minn. 2006) (noting state’s theory that defendant committed murder to collect on a life-insurance policy and obtain other financial benefits in order to pay off gambl
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 566 (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Vernard Glover Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Vernard Glover Minn. 2024
“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(applying abuse-of- discretion standard to claim that evidentiary ruling deprived appellant of his right to present a complete defense); (applying abuse- of-discretion standard to claim that evidentiary ruling limiting cross-examination violated appellant’s right to confront witnesses).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he main purpose of cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause is to allow the defendant an opportunity to reveal bias, and thereby to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , State v. Mosley , , 795 (Minn. 2014) (discussing CSLI evidence but not examining whether it was admissible); Francis v. State , , 895 (Minn. 2010) (same); State v. Tran , , 543 (Minn. 2006) (same).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 We are not persuaded otherwise by Deno ’s d 540 (Minn. 2006)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he district court possesses wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross - examination of a prosecution witness.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 540, 551 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a defendant is allowed to present evidence challenging the police investigation of alternative suspects)
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he [district] court possesses wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination of a prosecution witness.”
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
B. Cross-Examination A district court has broad discretion in evidentiary matters related to cross- examination, but “the Confrontation Clause operates as a limit on that discretion.” -51 (Minn. 2006)).
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
See, -51 (Minn.2006) (“The discretionary authority of the court to control the scope of cross-examination is limited by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).