Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Valentine, 787 N.W.2d 630.

126 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he rationale for admitting relationship evidence under section 634.20 is to illuminate the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim and to put the alleged crime in the context of that relationship.” State v. Valentine , review denied (Minn. Nov.
Paul Matthew Ashfeld, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“When challenging evidentiary rulings, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that a ppellant was thereby prejudiced.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[E]vidence showing how a defendant treats [or treated] his family or household members .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he rationale for admitting relationship evidence under section 634.20 is to illuminate the relationship between the def endant and the alleged victim and to put the alleged crime in the context of that relationship.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-35 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ramey, d at 300; -54 (Minn. 1994); review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he rationale for admitting relationship evidence under section 634.20 is to illuminate the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim and to put the alleged crime in the context of that relationship.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
reviewed denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[E]vidence showing how a defendant treats his family or household members, such as his former spou ses or other girlfriends, sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Eliciting an officer’s testimony that he knows the defendant from prior contacts is error if the defendant’s identity is not an issue in the case.” State v. Valentine , (emphasis added), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Eliciting an officer’s testimony t hat he knows the defendant from prior contacts is error if the defendant’s identity is not an issue in the case.” (emphasis added) (citin g ), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court has assumed without deciding that it was misconduct for a pros ecutor to elicit the fact that a defendant’s alias was “Hitler,” stating, “Given the negative associations and irrelevance of the name ‘Hitler,’ the reference likely was inadmissible.” d 630, 642 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Valentine , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
I knew who he was.” When a defendant’s identity is not at issue in a case, a , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Valentine , , 637 (Minn. App. 2010).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Valentine , , 638 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact 10 with the victim.” State v. Valentine , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim.” State v. Valentine
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d for section 634.20 evidence before it is admitted,” Bell, d at 639, and this court has stated that “ evidence showing how a defendant treats his family or household members, such as his former spouses or other girlfriends, sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim .” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
20 in order “to illuminate the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim and to put the alleged crime in the context of that relationship.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20; (citing State v. McCoy , 9 (Minn. 2004)), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Minn. R. Evid 702 (noting that witness qualifies as expert based on “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”); see also State v. Valentine , 11 (concluding that police officer with degree in criminal justice qualified to testify as expert witness on battered-woman syndrome).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Evidence that shows how the defendant treats 7 other family or household members, including other girlfriends, “sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim.” State v. Valentine , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The test is whether the effect of the errors considered together denied appellant a fair trial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Valentine , (recognizing that the cumulative effect of errors may warrant reversal of conviction and entitle defendant to a new trial), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The test is whether the effect of the errors considered together denied appellant a fair trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Nov.
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
sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2017
sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We did so because evidence showing how a defendant treats his family or household members, including other girlfriends, “sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-38 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that police officer 6 qualified as an expert witness in battered-woman syndrome by virtue of law-enforcement experience, role as a probation officer, training in domestic-violence issues, and education), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Marquette Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Marquette Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he rationale for admitting relationship evidence under section 634.20 is to illuminate the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim and to put the alleged crime in the context of that relationship.” review denied (Minn. Nov.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by