Cited by

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

234 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Buomkuoth Gatluak Puot Well Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Paul Jonathon Lindahl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdifetah Ali Kalif Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ronald John Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Generally, “[e]videntiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court,” and on review, we “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Allison Ann Mastin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Evidentiary rulings rest w ithin 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. Alvin Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Ali , (“Ev identiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).
Minn. 2021
State v. 25 Ali, –54 (Minn. 2014)
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Lo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Hussein Abdulahi Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Sheldon Emory Noel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The admission of evidence is “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. Amy Christine Lukes-Quinn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lukes- Quinn asserts that we should apply the abuse-of-discretion standard because counsel made a hearsay objection, and evidentiary rulings typically “rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Francisco Velasquez-Lazo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Billy Joe Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Corey David Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district c ourt, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Antonio Erby Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Ali , d 235, 245 (Minn. 2014).
Town of West Lakeland v. Karl E. Auleciems, Susanne M. Auleciems, Ethan Auleciems, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
at 37 ( (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Kartumu Sonia King Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 This court will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.2 State v. Ali
State of Minnesota v. Juan Silva Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. David Ronald Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Precious Sylvanna Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidenti ary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Jordyn Lynn Hjeldness Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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. Ayodele Mayowa Ojo Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [this court] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
Minn. 2020
at 280–81 (emphasis added) (discussing State v. Ali (Ali I), n.19 (Minn. 2014) (explaining that Minn. Stat. § 609.106 “is constitutional with respect to almost all of those to whom it applies—adults”)).
State of Minnesota v. Dayquan Jayru Rain Hodge Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“In cases with multiple victims, consecutive sentences ar e rarely, if ever, disproportionate to the offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason John Gascoigne Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Tiron Patrick Beane Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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 v. Ali
State of Minnesota v. Portia Renee Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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. Jeremy Scott Archambault, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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. Lee Andrew Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(providing that appellate courts reverse an evidentiary ruling only when there is an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
’s admission of the hearsay evidence for plain error because appellant did not “put the prosecutor or [the district court] on notice of the particular argument that he now raises on appeal.” Typically, “[e]videntiary 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.”
Jill M. Larsen v. Wells Fargo Bank NA Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Amending statutes is, and always has been, the Legislature’s job.”).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Robert Rosnow Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.”
Thomas R. Blanck, et al v. Rayvell Deprie Carter, Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Company, EAN Holdings, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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. Latrone Deshone Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 “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.” d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. A. M Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ali , ; State v. Henderson
State of Minnesota v. TreJuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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. Jon Marvin Manypenny Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6 district court’s evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion.4 d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Duane Cedric Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Griller, d at 743; d 235, 247 -50 (Minn. 2014) (determining that the officer’s testimony regardi ng his identification of the defendant was admissible to provide context for the investigation).
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Malik Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Ali , 9 (Minn. 2014).
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Ali , , 268-69 (Minn. 2014) ; State v. Olson , , 17-18 (Minn. 1982) ; *364 State v. Osterloh , , 580 (Minn. 1978).
State of Minnesota v. Walter Jukkar Clark, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And the Minnesota Supreme Court explained “that evidence is generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation.”
State of Minnesota v. Clayton Francis Marshalek Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.13 (Minn. 2014) (applying rule of multiple admissibility and concluding that testimony that “was actually inadmissible” under one theory of admissibility, “was properly admissible for the p urpose of providing context”).
State of Minnesota v. Lance Martin Odegard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“In cases with multiple victims, consecutive sentences are rarely, if ever, disproportionate to the offense.”).
State of Minnesota v. Melie Ike Ilogu Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Anthony Strickland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Jurors are presumed to follow limiting instructions with r espect to the proper use of evidence.” -50 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. 2018
Citing State v. Ali (Ali I), the State argued the court could impose discretionary consecutive sentences irrespective of Miller and Jackson.