Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bailey, 732 N.W.2d 612.

84 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See 10 (stating that opening the door occurs when one party introduces certain material, creating a right in the opponent to respond with otherwise inadmissible material).
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Opening the door occurs 8 when one party by introducing certain material creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” d 612, 622 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
1(b); (discussing the 11 “opening the door” doctrine).
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(d 425, 436 (Minn. 2006) (other citations and quotation marks omitted).
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“This doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”) (quotations omitted)); (“Issues determined in a first appeal will not be relitigated in the trial court nor re-examined in a second appeal.”).
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.”
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Trokon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2014
creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted); State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 45, (“Where one party introduces inadmissible evidence, he cannot complain if the court permits his opponent in rebuttal to introduce similar inadmissible evidence.”) Therefore, there was no error, much less plain erro
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted); State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 45, (“Where one party introduces inadmissible evidence, he cannot complain if the court permits his opponent in rebuttal to introduce similar inadmissible evidence.”); (M
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that the “opening the door” doctrine prevents 4 one party from gaining an unfair advantage by presenting the fact-finder with a “misleading or distorted representation of reality”) (quotation omitted).
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But a defendant might make certain arguments or introduce material that “opens the door” to allow the state to “respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
(concluding that in review of Batson challenge, considerable deference is given to the district court’s finding regarding the State’s intent because that finding is based on credibility).
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
See, -88 (Minn.2007); -84 (Minn.2006); Blanche, d at 364-65 ; Reiners, d at 831-32 ; -54 (Minn.1992).
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Campbell 772 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
(concluding that new grounds offered on appeal to support argument that district court made evidentiary error would not be considered).
Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)); (applying the law of the case doctrine in a criminal case).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by