Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543.

261 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This evidence is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Evidence admitted pursuant to section 634.20 is commonly known as “relationship evidence.” d 543, 549 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Kong Pheng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kong Pheng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 543, 549 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. 4 Matthews, 2 Thus, such evidence is admissible if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice against the defendant, confusing the issue, misleading the jury, undue delay, or the unnecessary presentation of cumulative evidence.
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation omitted).4 Thus, such evidence is admissible if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by 3 In 2013, the Minnesota legislature changed the language of section 634.20 to refer to “domestic conduct,” rather than “similar conduct.” 2013 Minn. Laws ch. 47, § 7.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This evidence is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lindsey, d at 757; (noting relationship evidence is relevant because it assists the jury in assessing witness credibility).
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means [that the error] violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error is plain if it is “clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones 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
But in State v. Matthews, our supreme court held that a prosecutor did not engage in misconduct by describing the defense’s explanation of events as “concocted,” “ridiculous,” and “unbelievable.”
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
“Under that test, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the misconduct constitutes (1) error, (2) that is plain.”