Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. True Thao, 875 N.W.2d 834.

82 citing documents.

Hennepin County State of Minnesota v. Johnny Leroy Brown Hudson, C.J. Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Sathre Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We review evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Cristian Joel Mungia Figueroa Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Malik Demone Tatum Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We review evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Vincent Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, -40 (Minn. 2016) (recognizing that a district court’s limiting instruction can reduce the probability that jurors will use Spreigl evidence for an improper purpose).
State of Minnesota v. Sylvester Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Valentine, d at 638; -41 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing admission of expert testimony).
State of Minnesota v. Jaisden Harold-Dru Hanners Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jaisden Harold-Dru Hanners Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This court reviews evidentiary rulings, “including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an 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
This court reviews evidentiary rulings, “including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Donta Jaboat Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Generally, expert testimony about gangs is admissible when a defendant is charged with committing an offense for the benefit of a gang and the expert testimony will add “precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within its experienc e.” -41 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jerdale Lewis Grace Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rmine if there is a reasonable possibility that inadmissible evidence of a prior conviction significantly affected a verdict, we consider three factors, including whether (1) “the district court instructed the jury to limit the use of the other 17 crime evidence,” (2) “the [s]tate dwelled on the evidence in closing argument,” and (3) “the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Devon Doby Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Colt Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, even when, as here, the defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional righ
State of Minnesota v. Ruben Perez-Robles Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 834, 840-41 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing admission of expert testimony); (reviewing the admission of evidence as a prior consistent statement under rule 801).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Emerson Alexander Gonzalez-Rivas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Although district courts may favor [model] jury instructions, their use is not required.”
State of Minnesota v. Lamarr Lucky Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(declining to analyze whether other-acts evidence was admissible where the defendant had not demonstrated that the admission was harmful).
Minn. 2023
It is not error for the district court to modify a model jury instruction “to fit the contentions of the parties.” –12 (Minn. 2006); (“Although district courts may favor pattern jury instructions, their use is not required.”).
State of Minnesota v. Weston Marshal Voeltz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Joseph Hibbler Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An appellate court reviews “evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.” d 834, 840 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
here is a reasonable possibility that inadmissible evidence of a prior conviction significantly affected a verdict, it is appropriate to consider three factors: 16 “whether the district court instructed the jury to limit the use of the other crime evidence,” “whether the State dwelled on the evidence in closing argument ,” and “whether the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0966), and Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0979), vs. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Nathanael John Prevo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Joshua William Dwyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Although district courts may favor pattern jury instructions, their use is not required.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Scott Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. L. N., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In assessing this possibility, we consider whether the district court issued a cautionary instruction to the jury, which we presume the jury followed, whether the state “dwelled on the evidence in closing argument,” and “whether the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.”
State of Minnesota v. Adam Frederick King Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 834, 840 (Minn. 2016).
Carlos Avelino Contreras v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Derrick George Rocha Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Marcel Dylan Zephier Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ronald Lee Schlangen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Terrvante Rennicko Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Paul Jonathon Lindahl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 834, 840 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Joseph Shafer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Quinten Lavel Osgood, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jay Rodney Richard Clayborne Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This includes evidentiary rulings “related to the admissibility of expert testimony.” State v. Thao
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Herman Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dametrius Ratheal Adrian Moore v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When a defendant has been charged with committing a crime for the benefit of a gang, the s tate “may offer expert testimony on gangs,” as long as “the testimony adds precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within its experience.” –41 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Bernard Nowels Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And the Minnesota Supreme Court reiterated this point in State v. Thao , (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Tamico Annette Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tony Flattum v. Pro Tech Restoration, Inc., Brian Jovan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nevertheless, were we to ex amine the objection, “[w]e review evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Latrone Deshone Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This includes evidentiary rulings “related to the admissibility of expert testimony.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald James Risk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
State v. Thao , , 839 (Minn. 2016) ("When determining whether the admission of prior-bad-acts evidence is harmful, we have considered ...
Melissa Regouski, as court-appointed Guardian and Conservator for Morgan Moeller, Ward and Protected Person v. Noel Zander, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Deangelas Demoyne Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019