Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d 752.

116 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Miguel Saavedra Amigon Minn. Ct. App. 2026
assist[ed] the jury in assessing witness credibility.” See Matthews, d at 549 (quotation omitted); see 10 also State v. Lindsey , (determining the relationship evidence “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Lue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Lue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See McCoy, d at 161 (affirming admission of relationship evidence that “assisted the jury by providing context with which 10 it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”); (recognizing “significant probative value” of relationship evidence “in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Ajee Arylce King Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-57 (Minn. App. 2008) (affirming the admission of relationship evidence and explaining that a limiting instruction “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Lamechtric Irving Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Jeramy John Wharton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Relationship evidence has “significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jarrod James Pohl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Luis Texta-Cipriano Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(affirming the admission of relationship evidence that “assisted the jury by providing a context with which it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”); (deciding that the relationship evidence in that case “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Raoul Elias Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, Andersen, d at 441-42; State v. Lindsey , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Don Boswell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(deciding that the relationship evidence in that case “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Dimitri Limogianni Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Albert Christopher Juring Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jairo Missael Fernandez Sorto Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jairo Missael Fernandez Sorto Minn. Ct. App. 2024
First, Fernandez Sorto’s interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 634.20 is unreasonably narrow and inconsistent with our authorities stating that the probative value of relationship evidence is “bolstered” when it “helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Davion Robert Magee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
place[] the event[s] in context.” -57 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph William Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Gilberto Dominguez-Solis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (defining relationship evidence as “[e]vidence of domestic conduct” including evidence of domestic abuse, “by the accused against the victim of domestic conduct, or against other family or household members”) ; (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (determining that relationship evidence “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. V. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Relationship evidence has probative value if it “helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant” or “places the event in context.” State v. Lindsey , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Daniel McPheeters Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(determining that evidence that the defendant twice violated an order for protection was “probative of a material fact, namely the history of [the defendant and victim’s] relationship”); -57 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that evidence establishing the relationship between the victim and the defendant has probative value), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Lance J Walters Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that relationship evidence “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ant], and the times that [the defendant] attempted to manipulate, control, and restrain her.” d 635, 641 (Minn. 2006) (determining that evidence that the defendant twice violated an order for protection was “probative of a material fact, namely the history of [the defendant and victim’s] relationship”); State v. Lindsey , (stating that evidence establishing the relationship between the victim and the defendant has probative value).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Walter James Abrams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jeramy John Wharton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court’s limiting instruction “lessen[s] the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lablanche Vanengen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
with Vanengen and what Vanengen should have known to be acceptable, consensual contact.4 (“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dorell Monte Young Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(Spreigl evidence); ( relationship evidence), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Denni Allen Apfelbacher Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Toman Davin Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Douglas Hager Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” State v. Lindsey , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Cermor Rio Boakai Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Arturo Macarro Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lynn Paxton Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Ronaldo Serrano-Santana Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Lindsey , , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Kimberly JoAnn Denne Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A court interprets a statute to discern legislative intent.” State v. Lindsey , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. James Francis Vierling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” d 752, 756 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dirk Udo McHugh Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dewayne Braswell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, -41 (Minn. App. 2017) ( upholding admission of victim’s testimony about strangulation assault the day following the offense as relationship evidence) ; State v. Lindsay , d 752, 756 (Minn. App. 2008) (upholding admission of evidence of a defendant’s conduct more than a month after the charged offense because “[i]n the context of [the defendant’s] relationship with [the victim], evidence of [the defendant’s] later conduct had significant probative value .
State of Minnesota v. Hector Garcia Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Jose Angel Trevino v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Santiago Guadalupe Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The conduct underlying the stalking- and OFP-violation charges fits under the definition of domestic conduct.1 1 Moreover, the relationship evidence does not have to oc cur prior to the charged offense in order to be admissible, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Delane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Minor, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Relationship evidence is probative if it assists the jury by providing context for the charged offense, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Cairo Melancon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Michael Strother Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A limiting instruction from the district court “lessen[s] the probability of undue weight being g iven by the jury to the evidence.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
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. Lindsey , , 757 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Phillip D. Mallett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
provided a context in which to examine [the victim’s] credibility.” Id.; (noting that relationship evidence has “significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”).