Cited by

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

79 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review a district court’s ruling admitting expert testimony for an abuse of discretion.1
Eddie Niles Hubbard, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-40 (Minn. 2016); -59 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Thao , 7 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 739, 748-49 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Thao , –40 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(sufficiency of expert qualifications generally rests in district court’s sound discretion).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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).