Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Swinger, 800 N.W.2d 833.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
401; (“A fact is rele vant if, when taken alone or in connection of other facts, it warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. William Louis Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Louis Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
401; (“A fact is relevant if, when taken alone or in connection of other facts, it warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 833, 839 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of: Tracie Nicole O dle and OBO Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Jonathan James O … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Carmen Marie Burth Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Carmen Marie Burth Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This is a low bar: “A fact is relevant if, when taken alone or in connection of other facts, it warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When determining whether the cumulative effects of the errors denied a defendant a fair trial, “reviewing courts balance the egregiousness of the errors against the weight of proof against the defendant.” (emphasis added), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
A20-1587 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When determining whether cumulative error denied a defendant a fair trial, “reviewing courts balance the egregiousness of the errors against the weight of proof against the defendant.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Even where the dist rict court mistakenly admits improper testimony, the error “is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence signifi cantly affected the verdict.” State v. Swinger , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-40 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., State v. Darveaux , , 48–49 (Minn. 1982); , 838 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Swinger , d 833, 837 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cf. State v. Swinger , (applying reasonable -possibility standard to erroneous admission of prior convictions).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Whether the probative value of a prior conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect is a matter within the discretion of the district court.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
609(a)(2)); (stating that misdemeanor theft by swindle, theft by fraud, and theft by false representation were crimes involving dishonesty or false statement), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When determining whether a defendant was denied a fair trial as a result of cumulative errors, “reviewing courts balance the egregiousness of the errors against the weight of proof against the defendant.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But when prior convictions are “at the margin of admissibility,” a district court should “exercise great care in making the judgments called for by [r]ule 609.” Id.; (stating that a district court must individually weigh the probative value of each conviction when considering admissibility for impeachment), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[U]nfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” 5 review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[U]nfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[U]nfair prejudice is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” d 833, 839 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Shane Michener Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Evidence is not unfairly prejudicial merely because it is damaging to the defendant’s case; instead, unfair prejudice is caused by evidence that “persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” 4 (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
402; review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[U]nfair prejudice is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging 7 evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[U]nfair prejudice is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court abuses its discretion if it does not consider “the probative value of each conviction individually.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When balancing the probative value against the potential prejudice, unfair prejudice is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” 9 (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by