Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201.

492 citing documents.

Lance Arnold Kingbird v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.”).
State of Minnesota v. Keneisha Sharonese Gilmer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andreas Jeffrey Joyner Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Josef Brenner Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Richard Alan Quarles Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jay Honan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Justin Duane Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Washington Leroy Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. George Luis Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Maurice Oats, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Lue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Lue Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Krutchek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“saw Lafore dressed in jail clothes and identified as the defendant in her case.” Therefore, he argues, B.J.K.’s in-court identification of Lafore as her assailant was not “reliable and consistent with due process.” 8 Appellate courts review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and this court has reviewed a district court’s decision to admit identification evidence for abuse of discretion, (), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Tony Allen Gohl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Deshawn Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(reviewing evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion); (reviewing unobjected-to errors for plain error).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court has broad discretion to make evidentiary rulings, and we will reverse them only if the district court abused its discretion, and the abuse of discretion was harmful, meaning that the “wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict,” Jaros, d at 472.
State of Minnesota v. Karl Evald Auleciems Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Adam Eldon Switala Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Dimitri Limogianni Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Terrell Joseph Salazar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Larry Dusaun Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dedric Maurice Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 201, 203 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan King LaBelle Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The “appellant has the burden of establishing that the district court abused its discretion that [the] appellant was thereby prejudiced.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Vin Khumpavong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Vin Khumpavong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the district court and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Morayo Surat Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Terry Marcell Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Eduardo Lopez Navarro Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Malik Saleem Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. David Howard Kollars Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the district court and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Frank James Bigbear Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the district court and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
In the Matter of: Gladys Barkey Asiedu v. Michael Kwabena Asiedu Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Moosisaa Dhugumaa Bulchaa Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 201, 203 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Murdent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Stephen Prince Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Malachi Henessey Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jayson John Rogahn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Hussein Abdulahi Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellant bears “the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discr etion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.”