Cited by

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

261 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Yunmie Quiwonkpa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Yunmie Quiwonkpa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Such evidence is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.” (citation omitted).
Joshua Steven Parsons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joshua Steven Parsons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Relationship evidence is relevant because it illuminates the history of the relationship between the victim and defendant and may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This evidence is referred to as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Evidence admitted pursuant to section 634.20 is commonly known as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
11 Even if the district court plainly erred by allowing evidence of Needham’s history of drug use, the error “did not affect [his] substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This so-called “[r]elationship evidence is relevant because it illuminates the history of the relationship between the victim and defendant and may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If the defendant is successful, the burden then shifts to the State to demonstrate that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Evidence admitted pursuant to section 634.20 is commonly known as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(providing that objections to the complaint must be 8 made at least three days before the omnibus hearing or they are waived); (holding that issues not raised in district court, including “const
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Evidence admitted pursuant to section 634.20 is commonly known as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Eugene Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Eugene Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. McCoy –61 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“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. Michael Antwon Common Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Antwon Common Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Such evidence is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Relationship evidence is relevant because of that illumination and because it “may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.”
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
at 439-40 ; (exercising discretion to decide a jury instruction issue “related to an unadjudicated jury verdict” because the issue was functionally justicia-ble and “one of public importance and statewide significance”).
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Failure to include all defenses, objections, issues, and requests in a motion constitutes a waiver.” (quotation omitted)); (explaining that an attorney may waive certain nonfundamental rights, including decisions pertaining to the conduct
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Such evidence of “similar conduct” is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014