Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Meldrum, 724 N.W.2d 15.

48 citing documents.

Troy K. Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
If a brief “does not contain an argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations raised, the allegation is deemed waived.” d 15, 22 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4 “Pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- 21 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The purpose of a cautionary instruction is to ensure that the jury uses the other- crimes evidence solely for the permissible purpose and not to convict the defendant due to the prior bad acts.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
the weight of the evidence.” d 15, 23 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that an allegation is considered waived if it is outside the record and an issue is waived if the brief does not develop an argument or contain legal authority), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- 22 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
d 776 , 785 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that "[i]n light of our decision in Meldrum , the district court should have issued cautionary instructions related to the proper use of [634.20] evidence, and the failure to do so represented error that was plain" but concluding that "the lack of an instruction was not prejudicial and did not affect [the defendant's] substantial rights"); State v. Meldrum , , 21-22 (Minn. App. 2006) (stating that "[u]pon admittance of [634.20] evidence, even in the absence
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Upon admittance of relationship evidence, even in the absence of a request from counsel, the district court should provide a cautionary instruction when the evidence is admitted, and again during its final charge to the jury.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although a cautionary instruction is “strongly preferred,” the “absence thereof does not automatically constitute [reversible] plain error.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In State v. Meldrum, we stated that when relationship evidence is admitted, “ [a] cautionary instruction is strongly preferred.” , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-22 (Minn. App. 2006) (observing that the danger of using this evidence for an improper purpose is “so significant that the precaution of p roviding a limiting instruction .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding that pro se allegations made outside of the record and without supporting legal authority are forfeited), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 31.02) ; (applying the plain-error standard of review where the appellant raised a pretrial objection to relationship evidence, the district court made a preliminary ruling, and the appellant failed to object or request a limiting instruction when the evidence was later introduced at trial); -20 (Minn. App. 2006) (same), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
District courts have “considerable latitude in the selection of language for jury instructions.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ampah did not request a cautionary instruction, but “even in the absence of a request from counsel, the district court should provide a cautionary instruction when the [relationship] evidence is admitted, and again during its final charge to the jury.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Mervel George Jones, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mervel George Jones, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding appellate court does not consider claims that have not been fully briefed), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that absent objection at district court, an appellate court reviews for plain error), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Fue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. 2 Meldrum, (finding no significant effect on verdict when prosecutor did not encourage use of evidence for propensity purposes), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “if a brief fails to make or develop any argument at all, the issue asserted is considered waived”) (-81 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-22 (Minn.App.2006) (observing that the danger of using this evidence for an improper purpose is “so significant that the precaution of providing a limiting instruction ...
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“Absent an objection at district court, an appellate court may only review for ‘plain error.’ ” -20 (Minn.App.2006) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Although section 634.20 relationship evidence is distinct from Spreigl evidence, “the purpose of each type of evidence is similar.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-39 (Minn.2006); review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Jan.