Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vang, 774 N.W.2d 566.

154 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
7 We also note that there is little likelihood that the challenged testimony “substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nazari Vasilich Cam Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazari Vasilich Cam Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If no constitutional right was implicated, we will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
Gregory Levon Spraggins, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] district court’s instructions must be read as a whole to determine whether they accurately describe the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2006) (recognizing that evidence about a defendant’s involvement in a gang, including expert testimony about gang culture and a particular gang, was admissible because it “had significant probative value” to an essential element of the crime under section 609.229, and that exclusion of such evidence would “render[] convictions under [that section] nearly impossible to obtain”); –77 (Minn. 2009) (holding that, despite danger of unfair prejudice, expert testimony about gangs was admissible to prov
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-77 (Minn. 2009) (applying Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-79 (Minn. 2009) (ruling police officer testimony that defendant’s activities constituted a “pattern of criminal behavior” was an expression of a legal opinion and “invaded the province of the jury”); d 425, 434-35 (Minn. 2006) (prohibiting admission of testimony about a legal concl
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 566, 578 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When erroneously admitted evidence does not involve a constitutional issue, “the erroneously admitted evidence [must have] substantially influenced the jury verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sam Horace Meeks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sam Horace Meeks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The district court abuses its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences when the resulting sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010