Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McCurry, 770 N.W.2d 553.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(emphasis added); see also McCoy, d at 161 (holding section 634.20 allows state to admit relationship evidence that “illuminates the history of the relationship between an accused and a victim” and provides context to the charged crime); (concluding phrase “not limited to” in section 634.20 encompasses “general testimony about the relationship”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Id.; see also Boswell, d at 655 (analyzing challenge to improper testimony); Manthey, d at 506 (same); (same), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In State v. McCurry, we interpreted the “not limited to” language of section 634.20 “to encompass general testimony about the relationship, including conduct that does not rise to the level of the crimes listed in the definition of ‘similar conduct.’” d 553, 560 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Similarly, in State v. McCurry, this court referred to the “not limited to” language in the statute as encompassing “general testimony about the relationship, including conduct that does not rise to the level of the crimes listed in the definition of ‘similar conduct.’”1 (“Such evidence was admitted in this case, when [the victim] described ongoing tension, arguments, or minor spats between her and [the defendant].”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“When the state cannot charge a crime constituting domestic abuse, it may not use § 634.20 to circumvent rules of admissibility for prior bad acts.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that “the ‘not limited to’ language is more likely meant to encompass general testimony about the relationship, including conduct that does not rise to the level of the crimes listed in the definition of ‘similar conduct’”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that “the ‘not limited to’ language is more likely meant to encompass general testimony about the relationship”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And this court has recognized that “doubts about instructions have not held sway in Minnesota courts, which in the years since Huffstutler have adopted a presumption that jurors follow instructions.” -59 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. McCurry , (stating that “the ‘not limited to’ language is more likely meant to encompass general testimony about the relati onship”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State 12 v. McCurry, -59 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 553, 556 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But this court has 9 recognized that “doubts about instructions have not held sway in Minnesota courts, which in the years since Huffstutler have adopted a presumption that jurors follow instructions.” –59 (Minn. App. 2009) (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The majority focuses on “similar conduct.” An earlier version of section 634.20 provided for the admissibility of “[e]vidence of similar conduct,” which includes “domestic abuse.” See Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2006); 561 (Minn. App. 2009) (concluding statutory relationship evidence is only admissible when the state charges a crime involving domestic abuse), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis 883 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis 883 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dragos Valentine Bogza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dragos Valentine Bogza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But even though in Minnesota the law presumes that jurors follow instructions, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
sible as evidence under section 634.20 because it does not include “similar conduct.” We are not persuaded.2 In State v. McCurry, this court explained that the “similar conduct” language is not so limiting and is “more likely meant to encompass general testimony about the relationship, including conduct that does not rise to the level of crimes listed in the definition of ‘similar conduct.’” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-59 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that Minnesota courts presume jurors follow the district court’s curative instructions), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-59 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“References to a defendant’s prior criminal history can be unfairly prejudicial.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(stating that “[w]hen the state cannot charge a crime constituting domestic abuse, it may not use § 634.20 to circumvent rules of admissibility for prior bad acts”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But “[w]hen the state cannot charge a crime constituting domestic abuse, it may not use [section] 634.20 to circumvent rules of admissibility for prior bad acts.” State v. *651 McCurry, review denied (Minn. Oct.
In Re Enlargement of the Valley Branch Watershed District 781 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Enlargement of the Valley Branch Watershed District 781 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that the definite article is more specific and denotes particular, specified persons or things), review denied (Minn. Oct.