Cited by

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

166 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Amanda Mae Coleman 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 v. William Eugene Hale Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Luis Garcia Ortiz 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 v. Ihar Daniliuk 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.”
Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El v. Jeff Titus, et al 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 v. D.D. 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 v. Raymon Freeman 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 v. Jose Francisco Velasquez-Lazo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Amonte Dajon Pate 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 v. David Edward Cardinale 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 v. Jordyn Lynn Hjeldness Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Xavier Alfred Haywood 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 v. Abner Otwoma Momanyi 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 v. Christopher Lee Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Barthel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Evidentiary rulings “rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. John Melvin Karnes 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 v. Christopher Jovan Hargrove Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the appellant was thereby prejudiced.”
State of Minnesota v. Edward Gary Kowalzyk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Omar Kwabena Walford 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 v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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 v. Ryan Boyd Banwell 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 v. Deangelas Demoyne Cook 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 v. Anthony Scott David Auginaush 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 v. Tory Larae Moore 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 v. Lannon Lavar Burdunice 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 v. Damon Ray Garnett Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Juan Andres Gonzalez, Jr. 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 v. Kent Michael Hamre 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 v. Murtada Ahmed Abdelrahim 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 v. Eddie Kamor James Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Kendall Duncan 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 v. Jesse Romeo Singh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Zhaokun Tong 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.”