Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Washington, 725 N.W.2d 125.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Washington , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
relies on the prosecutor’s statement: “Well, you’re here to tell your version of the events, right?” He 8 argues that, when the prosecutor asked this question, he implicitly expressed the opinion that Gonzalez was lying and that “his version of the facts is not the truth.” Prosecutors commit misconduct by giving their “own opinion about the credibility of a witness.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Washington , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In contrast, here, the store manager’s testimony was “rationally based on her perceptions and was helpful to the jury.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
As this court explained in Kasim, lay opinions that are rationally based on a witness’s perceptions are “admissible if they are helpful to a jury.” 2019 WL 2415974 at *4 ( rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 125, 134 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that the prosecutor di d not commit misconduct by calling the defendant a liar in closing argument when referring to defendant’s prior conviction for providing false information to a police officer) , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 4 The state also relies on State v. Washington , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, (determining that 911 operator’s opinion was admissible under Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This court “will reverse a conviction if prosecutorial error, considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” d 125, 133 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
This court “will reverse a conviction if prosecutorial error, considered in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” d 125, 133 (Minn. App. 2006) (), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
27, 2018), Pak, d at 629 (deter mining no error occurred where deputy offered opinion that, based on his own on-scene observations, alleged victim “had been assaulted”), State v. Washington , (holding 911 operator’s lay opinion that caller was being assaulted was admissible because it complied with rule 701), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We have also held that a 911 operator’s lay opinion testimony that the caller was being assaulted was admiss ible because it “was ‘rationally based’ on her perceptions and was helpful to the jury.” review denied (Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Washington , (holding that a 911-call operator’s testimony that she believed the caller was being assaulted was admissible lay -opinion testimony under rule 701 because it “was ‘rationally based’ on her perceptions and was helpful to the jury”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Washington , , 137 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The overarching problem presented by prosecutorial misconduct is that it may deny the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
11 “The overarching problem presented by prosecutorial misconduct is that it may deny the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Armstrong, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (March 20, 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ernesto Veraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Since a purported error must be contrary to current law in order to be plain, d 125, 133 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Distinguished State v. PAK 787 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
137 (Minn.App.2006), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by