Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Barnslater, 786 N.W.2d 646.

72 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jamie Alden Godbout Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 646, 651 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Santana Perez Solis Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Luis Texta-Cipriano Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(discussing the strength of the state’s evidence when assessing the risk of unfair prejudice posed by relationship evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Raoul Elias Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Amal Mohamed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Albert Christopher Juring Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Regarding relationship evidence, “[e]vidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct 27, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan King LaBelle Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Daniel McPheeters Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-51 (Minn. App. 2010) , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Dennis Bromen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
9 in the past and specifically includes prior acts of “domestic abuse.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20; (“Evidence presented under section 634.20 is offered to demonstrate the history of the relationship between the accused and the victim of domestic abuse .”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dorell Monte Young Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We note that the district court abused its discretion in finding that this evidence constitute d relationship evidence because Minn. Stat. § 634.20 “requires that the evidence address similar conduct by the accused against ‘the victim of domestic abuse.’”
State of Minnesota v. Denni Allen Apfelbacher Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Ronaldo Serrano-Santana Minn. Ct. App. 2021
28, 2018) and appeal dismissed (Minn. June 5, 2019); ( reasoning that the limited nature of the complainant’s testimony minimized the potential for unfair prejudice , the district court’s final jury instruction s alleviated much of the risk that the jury would improperly convict the defendant for the prior offenses rather than the charged offe
State of Minnesota v. Kimberly JoAnn Denne Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Ishmel Barry McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2021
looking for shotgun) ; State v. Mullen , ( underlying conduct included the defendant breaking victim’s window and threatening to kill her); State v. Stillday , (underly ing conduct included evidence that defendant punched victim in the face several times and caused the victim to lose consciousness); State v. Barnslater , -49 (Minn. App. 2010) (underlying conduct included multiple acts of violence against victim).
State of Minnesota v. James Francis Vierling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dewayne Braswell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The purpose of the statute is to “demonstrate the history of the relationship between the accused and the victim.” State v. Barnslater , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Ethan James Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Barnslater , , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Darnell Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The probative value of r elationship evidence depends on the extent to which the evidence “helps to establish the relationship between the victi m and the defendant” or “places the [charged offense] in context.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Minor, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Courts admit relationship evidence under section 634.20 if “(1) it demonstrates similar conduct by the accused; (2) the conduct is perpetrated against the victim of domestic abuse or against another family or household member; and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
See State v. Barnslater , , 654 (Minn. App. 2010) (stating that "[i]n light of [its] decisions in Word and Meldrum , the district court's error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the proper use of [634.20] evidence was plain" but concluding that this error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Beliad Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Duane John BlackBull Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Then, in State v. Barnslater, we held that “[i]n light of our decisions 13 in Word and Meldrum, the district court’s error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the proper use of relationship evidence was plain.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Isiah Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Id.; State v. Barnslater , 2 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Christian Anthony Schutz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barnslater , -54 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Donyell Tyrone Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding that relationship evidence was probative because it explained the history of the relationship 5 between the abuser and the victim); see also State v. Barnslater , (explaining that rel ationship evidence was “particularly probative” because it “place[d] the event in context” by “help[ing] to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Phillip D. Mallett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Evidence presented under section 634.20 is offered to demonstrate the history of the relationship between the accused and the victim of domestic abuse.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Vollie Andre Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(deeming that the district court’s error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the proper use of the relationship evidence was plain).
State of Minnesota v. Walter Marquetta Humphrey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Humphrey relies on three cases to support his argument that the district court erred; see McCoy, d at 161; State v. Barnslater , and State v. Word , (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Russell Wayne Melanson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Plain error exists when the district court commits an obvious 9 error that affects the defendant ’s substantial rights.” State v. Barnslater , (citing State v. Ihle , ), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Cassie Ann Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Alexander Houle Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Barnslater , n.3 (Minn. App. 2010) (concluding that an analysis under Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Russell Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Plain error exists when the district court commits an obvious error that affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Barnslater , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. David Alexander Schill, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Barnslater , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Desmond Lamart Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-54 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Section 634.20 applies only in domestic-violence cases, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.