Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stone, 784 N.W.2d 367.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Stone , (determining that if a distri ct court abuses its discretion in admitting evidence, the “evidentiary ru ling will not be reversed unless the error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In State v. Stone, this court stated that a victim’s prior audio-recorded statement to police “may be used to supplement incomplete memory when a witness cannot fully remember an incident and, therefore, cannot ‘testify fully and accurately’ about it.” aff’d
State v. Giannotta 456 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
803(5), see, (evaluating whether a witness had “insufficient recollection to testify fully and accurately” and whether the witness “made or adopted” the recorded recollection for purposes of rule 803(5)), no Minnesota case governs how a recorded recollection may be read into evidence.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“A memorandum or record can only qualify as a recorded recollection if, upon a witness’s use of a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying .
State v. Willis 898 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2017
State v. Willis 898 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
(reviewing de novo whether the district court properly interpreted Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
State v. Hanks 817 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
Moreover, “[e]ven where the district court abuses its discretion, the court’s evidentiary ruling will not be reversed unless the error substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.” (citation omitted).
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
“When interpreting the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, we first look to the plain language of the rule.”
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
Evidentiary rulings are “within the sound discretion of the district court and we will not disturb those rulings on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
“When interpreting the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, we first look to the plain language of the rule.”