DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

489 citing documents.

  • State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    “On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.”
  • State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    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 v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
  • State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
    We conclude that Vega-Lara’s prior testimony cannot be admitted under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) because Vega-Lara was not subject to cross examination at Morales’s trial “concerning the statement[s].” Rule 801(d)(1) requires that a witness “be ‘testable about the statement, meaning that he must be reasonably responsive to questions on the circumstances in which he made it.’ ” (quoting 4 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 404, at 175 (2d ed.1994)).
  • State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    When challenging evidentiary rulings, “the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.”
  • State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” (citations *15 omitted).
  • State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
  • State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
  • State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    We conclude that appellant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by evidence of the three inadmissible incidents, for several reasons.
  • State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (citation omitted); see also McCoy, d at 161 (holding that evidence admitted under section 634.20 need not meet the clear-and-convincing standard required for admission of character or Spreigl evidence, but need only be more probative than prejudicial).
  • State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Meyer 749 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
    “On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.”
  • State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
    “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006