Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Laurie Ann McIntyre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“District courts are afforded broad discretion and considerable latitude in choosing the language of jury instruct ions.” State v. Thao , (qu otation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Fuhol Rawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 834, 839 (Minn. 2016) (evaluating the harmlessness of evidence admitted under Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Edward Ortiz Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. De’Aries Calvin Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review a district court’s ruling admitting expert testimony for an abuse of discretion.1
Eddie Niles Hubbard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Duane John BlackBull Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-40 (Minn. 2016); -59 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Duane Griffin Gauna Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lonny Duane Lundgren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Thao , 7 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Glen Dale Acon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 739, 748-49 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Alexis Giovanni Barrow Minn. Ct. App. 2018
see also State v. Brown , (concluding that 7 admission of gang-expert testimony was not plain error because “[g]eneral testimony about the workings of a gang or the types of activities in which gangs engage is not considered testimony that reaches an ultimate
State of Minnesota v. Larry Donnell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When determining whether the admission of prior-bad-acts evidence is ha rmful,” the supreme court has “considered whether the district court inst ructed the jury to limit the use of the other crime evidence and not to convict the defendant based on that evidence.” (quotation om itted).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Lamar Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 834, 839 (Minn. 2016).
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Thao , , 841 (Minn. 2016) ; see State v. McDaniel , , 748-49 (Minn. 2010) (holding that the district court properly admitted gang expert testimony because it "described gang culture generally, and the role of retaliation and respect in gang culture," even though other witnesses testified that the defendant was
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Jockieth Malone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Walter Marquetta Humphrey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Cory Wiedeman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
y outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice, the district court’s admission of that evidence was not in error.8 8 Even if the district court admitted the relationship evidence in error, this court will only reverse if “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Thao , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Neal Grengs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Thao , –40 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Alexis Elview Hancock Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellant is prejudiced if “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Alexander Houle Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellant establishes prejudice if “there is a reasona ble possibility that th e wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(sufficiency of expert qualifications generally rests in district court’s sound discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Sean Patrick Brinkman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“An error is harmful if there is a reasona ble possibility that th e wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Desean Lamont Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 834, 839 (Minn. 2016) .
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
384 (Minn. 2011) (raising no concern with benefit-of-a-gang conviction when victim was bystander).