Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578.

190 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
(applying harmless-error review to an “erroneous exclusion of evidence that violates the defendant’s right to present evidence”); (applying harmless-error review to “Confrontation Clause errors”).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
When introducing reverse-Spreigl evidence, the proponent also must “ ‘comply with procedural and evidentiary rules.’ ” ().
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
8 (stating that the mere fact that another district court, in the proper exercise of its discretion, may have reached a different result on the same facts, does not mean the district court abused its discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
State v. Campbell 861 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 2015
Frank James Bammert v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank James Bammert v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–14 (Minn. 2004) (noting that the defendant had not made a clear, unequivocal request to represent himself even though he said that he did not want to proceed with his extant attorney).
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Duane Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Duane Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
He contends that credibility is an issue for the jury “in all contexts” and cites State v. Blom for its determination that “the district court inappropriately made a credibility assessment in rejecting the [proposed witness’s] testimony when all that was required was a determination of whether the inherent tendency connection, beyond a bare suspicion, had been made.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (holding that evidence of defendant’s conviction is clear and convincing evidence of prior incident).
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
(reviewing for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to change venue to a county to which the defendant objected).
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
See, (stating that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege).
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
Isaac v. Vy Thanh Ho 825 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2013
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
We have taken this position because “ ‘[f]ew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.’ ” (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Jeffries 806 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 2011
Larson v. State 801 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Larson v. State 801 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(stating that a defendant may waive fundamental constitutional rights); State ex rel.
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. Brown 792 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2011
State v. VONBEHREN 777 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. VONBEHREN 777 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
(explaining that although the defendant argued at trial that his statement was inadmissible under Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Atkinson 774 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
Jones I, d at 15-16 ; -59 (Minn.1977).
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008