Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali, 855 N.W.2d 235.

234 citing documents.

Blue Earth County State of Minnesota v. Lee Wayne Young, Jr. Procaccini, J. Dissenting, Hudson, C.J., Thissen, J Minn. 2026
See, n.7 (Minn. 2014) (declining to reach alternative ground for excluding a document when we determined that the district court excluded it on a proper ground).
State of Minnesota v. Qalinle Ibrahim Dirie Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Liban Dahir Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2026
the accuracy of M.G.’s pictures went to the weight of the evidence instead of admissibility.” “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Malik Demone Tatum Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deionte Jaewon Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Ali Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
DECISION Appellate courts “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Robert Simmons Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Edward Meat, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Steven Monson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deondre Demetrius Ramsey Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jay Honan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court” and will not be reversed “absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Sergio Morocho Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Dhara Hayi Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Patrick Martin, II Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Appellate courts review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” d 640, 651 (Minn. App. 2025) (), rev. denied (Minn. June 25, 2025).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Duane Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Louis Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Louis Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court,” and appellate courts “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Desean James Solomon Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deanna Lea King Minn. Ct. App. 2026
’s motive, and (3) his interpretation of King’s comment, “I know you don’t do that sh-t.” King asserts that each of these instances was speculation that was “unhelpful, and therefore inadmissible, opinion testimony.” “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Tremaine Tavion Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Maurice Oats, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Jamaal Terrance Tanna Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Travis Joel Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
As mentioned above, “evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellant argues that the “district court committed reversible error by allowing [respondent] to introduce A.R.’s hearsay statement that [appellant] tried to kill her mom.” “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court” and will not be reversed “absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Pharoah Gerald Ashley Minn. Ct. App. 2025
First, Ashley contends that the district court erred by allowing a “50 round drum style magazine to be admitted into evidence.” “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Tony Allen Gohl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Vick Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Vick Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Camarian Derelle Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Donta Jaboat Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Bruce Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Terry Soloman Price Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Archie Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Djamil Vagif Abiyev Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Rashid Hakim Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.24 (Minn. 2014) (declining to consider “argumentative assertions without any factual or legal support”).
State of Minnesota v. James Demetrius Redd Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion 17 of the district court,” and appellate courts “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Ahmedfowzi Haji Ismail Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ernest Marshall Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [an appellate court] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” 7
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Kurtis Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court,” and generally “we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Jill Diane Tucker Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jonathan Deloye Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Amal Mohamed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” 4
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jyrone White Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jyrone White Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Aren Franc Hatton Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”