Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Loving, 775 N.W.2d 872.

81 citing documents.

George Lanoue, et al., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (stating that a district court’s determinations regarding foundation for expert witness testimony will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion).
A17-1650 A17-1651 A17-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Loving , ( The district court properly admitted relationship evidence of threats against the defendant’s ex-girlfriend’s current boyfriend, when both the ex-girlfriend and her current boyfriend were victims in the case.).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
7 Wiedeman contrasts this case with State v. Loving , where the defendant denied meeting or knowing the victim and the court properly allowed for relationship evidence, unlike here where Wi edeman never denied knowing the victims .
State v. Andersen 900 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Andersen 900 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[R]elationship evidence is character evidence that may be offered ‘to show the strained relationship between the accused and the victim [and] is relevant to establishing motive and intent and is therefore admissible.’” State v. Loving, 6 () (quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[R]elationship evidence is character evidence that may be offered to show the ‘strained relationship’ between the accused and the victim and is relevant to establishing motive and intent and is therefore admissible.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b) is not a condition for admissibility of evidence directly pertaini ng to the relationship history between the defendant and the victim.” (citation omitted); see also State v. Hormann , 0 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that “Minnesota precedent [does not] require[] .
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that Minn. Stat. § 634.20 is a rule of evidence); (stating “[w]e review a district court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
tionship evidence.” Although “relationship evidence” often refers to Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2014), which permits admission of evidence “of similar conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic abuse,” caselaw also establishes another, non-domestic type of relationship evidence, which can be offered to show “the strained relationship between the accused and the victim.” d 872, 880 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Sylvester Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Sylvester Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that relationship evidence has increased probative value when it places the charged offense into proper context).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that evidence of past threats against victim is probative of context and intent for charged assault).
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
To obtain a reversal of the district court’s evidentiary ruling, Davis must prove that the ruling “was erroneous and prejudicial.”
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
(citation omitted) (stating that we review a district court’s determinations under the foundational reliability prong of Frye-Mack for an abuse of discretion); Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, (citations omitted) (stating that a district court’s determination of th
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
[and] such evidence has further probative value when it serves to place the incident for which appellant was charged into proper context.” (quotations omitted).