Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thames, 599 N.W.2d 122.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The verdict should be upheld if the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to th e state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the offense charged.” State v. Thames
Dametrius Ratheal Adrian Moore, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” (citing Minn. R. Evid.
David Wayne Benolt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A statement not given under oath is not admissible substantively, but may be admitted under Rule 607 for impeachment purposes.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bethany Good, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A statement not given under oath is not admissible substantively, but may be admitted under Rule 607 for impeachment purposes.” d 122, 125 (Minn. 1999); see Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Thomas Deitering Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Thomas Deitering Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000