Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vasquez, 912 N.W.2d 642.

88 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Antrquier Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Edward Canady Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-50 (Minn. 2018) (stating that forfeited issues are reviewed for plain error); State v. Rodriguez , (providing that “[a]n objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge” and that a defendant does not preserve for appeal an objection made on different grounds th
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Wally Hilborn Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Leticia Rene Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g. , -50 (Minn. 2018).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A defendant may preserve a claim of evidentiary error by making a pretrial motion to exclude the challenged evidence or by objecting at trial when the evidence is introduced.” State v. Vasquez , d 642, 649 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. James Zlanworse Seekie Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Warren James Northrup Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Eric Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ayodele Mayowa Ojo Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Sinatra Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review a district court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Richard Lee Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Generally, “[a] defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Kastigar Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A defendant is entitled to relief from a plain error if (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defe ndant’s substantial rights.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lee Andrew Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ellric Alfred Giroux Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A ppellate review of an eviden tiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, “[a]ppellate review of an evidentiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Eugene Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“‘Waiver’ is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” n.4 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Vance Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Melvin Karnes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Vasquez , (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Laura Cerda Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Odell NMN Branson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jon Marvin Manypenny Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ayanna Laverne Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Gotchie Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to admit e vidence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Vasquez
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
State v. Jaros 932 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 2019
State v. Bahtuoh , , 819 (Minn. 2013) (stating that denial of a *472 motion for a mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion because "the district court is in the best position to evaluate the prejudicial impact, if any, of an event occurring during the trial."); see State v. Vasquez , , 648 (Minn. 2018) (reviewing the district court's admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Earl Strother Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 642, 649 (Minn. 2018).
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Vasquez , , 650 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A defendant is entitled to relief from a plain error if (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Labaron Sentell Black Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Appellate review of an evidenti a r y i s s u e i s f o r f e i t e d w h e n a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A defendant is entitled to relief from a plain error if (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Artes White Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We will not hold that the district court abused its discretion unless its decision is “against logic and the facts on record.” –49 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Duane Griffin Gauna Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A court abuses its discretion when it reaches a ‘clearly erroneou s conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.’” State v. Vasquez , 3 Neither party contests that th e state’s untimely notice of exp ert testimony violated discovery rules.
State of Minnesota v. Titus Triston Miguel Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A court abuses its discretion when it reaches a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Lee Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2018