Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moore v. CAL SPAS OF MINNESOTA, 764 N.W.2d 816.

13 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Deionte Jaewon Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Regarding rule 403’s balancing requirement, the evidence of this altercation did not create an unfair risk of prejudice through persuasion by “illegitimate means” so as to require exclusion under rule 403, id., particularly when considering the district court’s broad discretion in making evidentiary rulings
State of Minnesota v. Cassandra Anne Dusold Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We have consistently held that the issue of legal mental illness is a question for the finder of fact, and we have granted the fact finder broad deference in assigning the weight to give to various testimony.” -23 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Dahir Abdow Noor Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Emma Elizabeth Leblanc Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Joel Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Cory Clifford Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The issue of mental illness is one for the factfinder to resolve, State v. Brom , and a reviewing court therefore giv es “broad deference” to the fact finder’s determination as to the appropriate weight assigned to various testimony , -23 (Minn. 2009).
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roberts , , 869 (Minn. 2016) ( , 820 (Minn. 2009) ; Davis v. State , , 522-24, 527 (Minn. 1999) ; State v. Wilson , , 245-46 (Minn. 1995) ; DeMars v. State , , 15-16 (Minn. 1984) ).
State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts 876 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2016
See, (defendant called 911, apologized, and acknowledged consequences); -24, 527 (Minn. 1995) (defendant fled the crime scene, hid in bushes, struggled with police, apologized, and acknowledged that his actions were wrong); -46 (Mi
State of Minnesota v. Warren Dean Schroyer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Even when a defendant alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Even when a defendant alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 830 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2013
“Evidentiary rulings, including the admission of expert testimony, are within the broad discretion of the district court.”
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010