Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ferguson, 804 N.W.2d 586.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
5 Finally, at oral argument, Rakowiecki’s
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(Anderson, Paul H., Justice, concurring).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom 6 N.W.3d 145 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom 6 N.W.3d 145 Minn. 2024
d 586, 590 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
“An error is not harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different if the error were not committed.” (internal citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Ferguson , 9 (Minn. 2011) (acknowledging that stu dies indicate certain factors affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ferguson , -91 ( Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
Distinguished State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
Appellant’s because the district court here did not exclude all of the alternative perpetrator evidence.
A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Compare State v. Miles , , 372 (Minn. 1998) (upholding exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness -identification evidence), and Helterbridle, d at 547 (same), -10 (Minn. 2011) (Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring) (discussing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and recent developments in other states, including New Jersey, concerning whether expert testimony or a jury instruction should be implemented to ensure jury understanding of the CS-3 limitations of
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible only if the defendant makes a threshold showing that the evidence the defendant seeks to admit has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible only if the defendant makes a threshold showing that the evidence the defendant seeks to admit has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.” (Ferguson I) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In assessing the probative value, a court must identify the precise disputed fact to which the Spreigl evidence would be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Before a district court decides to admit alternative-perpetrator evidence, the defendant must show “that the evidence the defendant seeks to admit has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the charged crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Spriegl, 272 Minn. 488, 493, see State v. Doty, 167 Minn. 164, 166, 208 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Rulings concerning the admission of expert testimony generally rest within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” –99 (Minn. 2014); (stating that decisions about whether an expert is qualified to provide testimony and whether the testimony will assist the fact-finder are within the district court’s discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
d 586, 590 (Minn. 2011).
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Smith, 920 N.E.2d at 954-55; -92 (Minn.2011) (recognizing contacts list from cellular telephone as evidence).