Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 771 N.W.2d 514.

176 citing documents.

State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
State v. Campbell , , 4 (Minn. 2012) (citing State v. Williams , , 523 (Minn. 2009) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[M]ultip le offenses are sentenced in the order in which they occurred.” State v. Williams , (quotation omitted); Minn. Sent.
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The interpretation of a statute and the sentencing guidelines are questions of law that we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see also State v. Williams , (stating that, because the convictions occurred within the past ten years, the second Jones factor “weigh[ed] in favor of admission”), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, “[c]onvictions that have occurred within the ten- year period are presumptively not stale.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kong Pheng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kong Pheng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, d 514, 520 (Minn. 2009) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion when applying the fifth factor because “the identity of the perpetrator was a central issue at trial in which appellant’s testimony would have contradicted the other witnesses” (emphasis added)); (Minn. 20
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “[Appellate courts] review a district court’s decision to admit evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions for an abuse of discretion.” d 514, 518 (Minn. 2009); (stating that “[appellate courts] will not reverse a district court’s ruling on the impeachment of a witness by prior conviction absent a clear abuse of discretion” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “[c]onvictions that have occurred within the ten-year period are presumptively not stale.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
idering whether probative value outweighs prejudicial effect, a district court considers five factors: “(1) the impeachment value of the prior crime; (2) the date of the conviction and the defendant’s subsequent history; (3) the similarity of the past crime with the charged crime; (4) the importance of defendant’s testimony; and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Guidelines 2.F (2015); d 514, 522 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry 864 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry 864 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 .F. (2012); *368 522 (Minn.2009) (stating that multiple offenses are sentenced in the order in which they occurred).
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[I]f a defendant commits one of these offenses [in the statutory exceptions], he or she may be convicted and sentenced for other offenses that arise out of the same behavioral incident.” (emphasis added)).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2(b) (2010); 524 (Minn. 2009); Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to admit evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions for an abuse of discretion.” d 514, 518 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
10 But we previously rejected a similar argument that “the ‘whole person’ analysis makes the first Jones factor an ‘anything goes’ test.” d 504, 509 (Minn. App. 2008), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by