Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Guzman, 892 N.W.2d 801.

162 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A defendant “must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence.” d 801, 811 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” ().
State of Minnesota v. William Arthur Kalligher Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. William Arthur Kalligher Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, MN, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions,” id., but it abuses its discretion “if the challenged instruction confuses, misleads, or materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
, A22-0290 Minn. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. 9 Guzman
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
19, 2019); (considering the context and purpose of a statement by a witness about incarceration).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
“ A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that an evidentiary error only requires reversal of a conviction if it was prejudicial).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Appellate courts will not reverse an evidentiary ruling unless the appellant shows “both that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the appellant was there by prejudiced.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is 5 against logic and the facts in the record.” Stat e v. Guzman
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Guzman
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
19, 1998).4 A district court abuses its discretion when its decision “is against logic and the facts in the record.”