Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hormann, 805 N.W.2d 883.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Miguel Saavedra Amigon Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Patrick Martin, II Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Persuasion by illegitimate means includes “leading the jury to improperly conclude that [the defendant] has a propensity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, and punished, for the charged offenses.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. William Louis Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Louis Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Persuasion by illegitimate means includes “leading the jury to improperly conclude that [the defendant] has a propensity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, and punished, for the 6 charged offenses.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jamison Franklin Wells Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Jeramy John Wharton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
istrict court reasoned that, even if the evidence was “severely damaging” to Wharton, the state did not seek to persuade the jury through “illegitimate means.” Persuasion by illegitimate means includes “leading the jury to improperly conclude that [the defendant] 13 has a propensity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, and punished, for the charged offenses.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jarrod James Pohl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Haeska Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Albert Christopher Juring Minn. Ct. App. 2024
16, 2010); (“ Relationship evidence is character evidence 6 that may be offered to show the strained relationship between the accused and the victim .
State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Second, Vang argues that “[t]he relationship evidence in this case lacked any specific time frame,” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Richardson Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” State v. Hormann , , rev. denied (Minn. Jun.
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Daniel McPheeters Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An error is harmless if “there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” -92 (Minn. App. 2011) (), rev denied (Minn, Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jeramy John Wharton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Persuasion by illegitimate means includes “leading the jury to improperly conclude that [the defendant] has a propensity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, and punished, for the charged offenses.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Mark Scott Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alejandro Mejia-Bonilla Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Persuasion by illegitimate means includes “leading the jury to improperly conclude that [the defendant] has a propensity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, and punished, for the charged offenses.” d 883, 891 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Persuasion by illegitimat e means includes “leading the jury to improperly conclude that [the defendant] has a propensity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, and punished, for the 9 charged offenses.” , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Ronaldo Serrano-Santana Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Vinson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Bauer , 15 see also State v. Mayhorn , -85 (Minn. 2006) (determining that the district court erred in admitting strained relationship evidence because the state failed to prove the prior conflict between the relevant parties by clear and convincing evidence); -91 (Minn. App. 2011) (applying requirement of clear and convincing evidence and the 404(b) balancing test) , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Dewayne Braswell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Hormann , , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Kathleen Lynn Alvar Minn. Ct. App. 2019
By “general relationship evidenc e,” Alvar seems to be referring to the basis of intro ducing relationship evidence est ablished under Minnesota caselaw, “independent of Minn. Stat. § 634.20, the Spreigl/rule 404(b) process, or the immediate-episode doctrine.” See State v. Hormann , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Desean Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Delane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Darnell Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
It is certainly true that evidence regarding a defendant’s prior conduct can, in some situations, pose “the risk of leading the ju ry to improperly conclude that [the defendant] has a propensity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, an d punished, for the charged offense[].” State v. Hormann , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Isiah Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“Minnesota caselaw has 3 established a basis for the introduction of relationship evidence independent of Minn. Stat. § 634.20 .
State of Minnesota v. Pao Choua Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Outsi de of the Minn. Stat. § 634.20 exception, “Minnesota caselaw has established a basis for the introduction of relatio nship evidence independent of Minn. Stat. § 634.20, the Spreigl/rule 404(b) process, or the immediate-episode doctrine.” State v. Hormann , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Phillip D. Mallett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Walter Marquetta Humphrey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Persuasion by illegitimate means in cludes “leading the jury to improperly conclude that [the defendant] has a propens ity to behave criminally and should now be convicted, and punished, for the charged offenses.”
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Alexander Houle Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(concluding, in stalking case, that relationship evidence placed the relationship in context where “the state needed to establish that appellant had given her reason to fear [his] repeated confrontationa l and intimidating conduct”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Galgalo Jarso Hache Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Scott Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Desmond Lamart Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b) is not a condition for admissibility of evidence directly pertaini ng to the relationship history between the defendant and the victim.” (citation omitted); see also State v. Hormann , 0 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that “Minnesota precedent [does not] require[] .
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n. Stat. § 634.20 (2014), which permits admission of evidence “of similar conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic abuse,” caselaw also establishes another, non-domestic type of relationship evidence, which can be offered to show “the strained relationship between the accused and the victim.” d 872, 880 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 883 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Such evidence is generally admissible to illuminate the relationship between the accused and the alleged victim and provide a context with which the jury can “better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship.” (stating that relationship evidence includes evidence of a “strained relationship” that puts the incident between the accused and the victim in context), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In a criminal case, the test to be applied is “whether, after viewing the evidence and all resulting inferences in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the jury.” review denied (Minn. Jan.