Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jahnke, 353 N.W.2d 606.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“specific instances of misconduct of the [witness] may be inquired into on cross-examination at the discretion of the trial judge if it is found that such acts are relevant and probative of veracity, and the probative value outweighs the risk of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or unnecessa
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Prosecutors in sexual -abuse cases are held to an especially high standard of behavior due to the emotional nature of such cases and the likelihood that any “emotive appeal to jurors is likely to be highly prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sexual abuse cases require the “highest behavior” by prosecutors because the cases “inescapably evoke an emotional re action.”
Ernesto Torres Garcia, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Travis Lee Keller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(recognizing that sexual abuse cases “inescapably evoke an emotional reaction” in jurors).
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“Prosecutors in sexual abuse cases must abide by the highest behavior.” d, 59, 61 (Minn.App.1985) ().
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-64 (Minn.1981) (because of lack of scientific reliability and diagnostic accuracy, prosecutor may not ask defendant whether he was beaten as child in order to imply that he is more likely to be child abuser); -10 (Minn.App.1984) (“highly prejudicial” for prosecutor to ask defendant in intrafamilial sexual abuse case whether she was victim of childhood sexual abuse); Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
for rev. denied (Minn. April 12, 1985)
State v. Axford 409 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Axford 409 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Welfare of M.S.M. 387 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of M.S.M. 387 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hanson 382 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hanson 382 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Litzau 377 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Danielson 377 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Litzau 377 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Danielson 377 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
an intrafamilial sexual matter, the prosecutor made improper inquiry into (1) a defendant’s prior convictions, (2) her having been a victim of child sexual abuse, (3) a polygraph test, and (4) an inadmissible photograph.
State v. Sands 365 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Sands 365 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
608(b), “[sjpecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, * * * may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.” Id; -09 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
State v. Balenger 359 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Balenger 359 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1984