Cited by

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

162 citing documents.

Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is “against logic and the facts in the record.”
Minn. 2021
see also State v. Guzman , (“If we conclude that the alleged error was harmless, we need not decide whether the district court erred in giving the instruction in question.”).
Minn. 2021
“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. 2021
“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. 2021
“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. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court abuses its discretion 5 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. 2020
We review unobjected-to evidentiary errors for plain error, which requires proof of an “(1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.”
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
“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. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
“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. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Evidentiary rulings “rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. C., Father. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the appellant was thereby prejudiced.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of t he law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
Donovan Jon Gilfillan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Guzman , -13 (Minn. 2017) (“When an alleged evidentiary error is harm less, an appellate court need not address the merits of the claimed error.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
State v. Guzman , , 810 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court abuses its discretio n 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. 2019
“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. 2019
A district court abuses its discretion if “its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” see also Soto , d at 308 n.1 ( ).
State v. Scheffler 932 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Scheffler 932 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Guzman , , 810 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
State v. Guzman , , 809 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A d istrict 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. 2019
“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. 2019
A district court abuses its discretion “when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and facts in the record.”
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Guzman , , 810 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
see also State v. Guzman , , 813 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court abuses its discretion “when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic 7 and facts in the record.”
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Guzman , , 810 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
he district court’s decision t o impose travel restrictions as a probation condition constitutes an abuse of discretion because they conflict with his plea agreement which c ontained the term “no travel res trictions.”2 An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court’s 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. 2018
“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. 2018
–13 (Minn. 2017) (instructing courts to proceed with a plain -error analysis only after defendant establishes that the district court plainly erred).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When an alleged evidentia ry error is harmless an appellate court need not address th e merits of the claimed error.” State v. Guzman , –13 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018