Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776.

115 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
vincing evidence that the defendant committed the prior bad act” and “the probative value of the evidence outweig hs any potential for unfair prejudice .” 64 (Minn. 1999); see Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (providing for admissibility of relationship evidence “unl ess the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice”); State v. Word , (stating that admissibility of section 634.20 relationship evidence does not require clear and convin cing evidence that defendant committe
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
27, 2010), and “allows much more latitude” than the exception to rule 404(b)
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]hen considering admissibility, the district court is not required to independently consider the state’s need for such evidence as ‘the need for section 634.20 evidence is naturally considered as part of the assessment of the probative value versus prejudicial effect of the evidence.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ass’n, 257 Minn. 470, 486, (stating with regard to a hearsay objection that “[i]t has been held that failure of counsel to insist upon a ruling to this objection constitutes a waiver thereof”); (requiring a “definitive ruling” to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Walter Wayne Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter Wayne Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “evidentiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear.”
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
785 (Minn. App. 2008) (defining relationship evidence and stating that such evidence requires a cautionary instruction).
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[O]nce the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting .
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To show his 5 substantial rights were affected, a defendant must establish that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “evidentiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear, or when the context at trial differs materially from that 10 at the time of the former ruling.”
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
27, 2010), and “allows much more latitude” than the exception to rule 404(b)
State of Minnesota v. Fue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(finding no significant effect on verdict when testimony of past domestic abuse provided context of the parties’ “troubled, long-term relationship”).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
27, 2010), and “allows much more latitude” than the exception to rule 404(b)
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see also McCoy, d at 159-60 (“A defendant is aware that his prior relationship with the victim, particularly in so far as it involves ill will or quarrels, may be presented against him.).
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
27, 2010), and “allows much more latitude” than the exception to rule 404(b)
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Ali Saleh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This court has previously held that “evidentiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear, or when the context at trial 11 differs materially from that at the time of the former ruling.” d 776, 783 (Minn. App. 2008).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by