Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action against Clem, 528 N.W.2d 862.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
is analogous to this case.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
616; (“Cross-examination to show the bias, prejudice, interest or disposition of the witness to tell the truth is a matter of right, the exercise of which is indispensable to show the truth.” (quotation omitted) ); Garceau, d at 40 (“If the witness on cross-examination denies or does not ful
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
9 Appellant cites to Copeland, Lanz-Terry, in his brief, but clarifies in his reply brief that these cases were cited “solely for the purpose of defining what constitutes ‘bias’ evidence.” While Pride and Lanz-Terry do set out rule statements concerning impeachment with bias evidence, both cases discuss the extent to which a defendant may cr
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
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. Eddie Niles Hubbard
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Subject to the [district] court’s right to reasonably limit questioning, the cross- examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness by revealing to the jury the possible biases and ulterior motives of the witness being cross- examined.” (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
As a result, “the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.”
-
State v. Wenthe
845 N.W.2d 222
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(applying harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to district court’s error in precluding cross examination of victim about her romantic relationship with investigating police officer).
-
State v. Grigsby
806 N.W.2d 101
Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(quoting State v. Elijah, 206 Minn. 619, 624 , 289 N.W.
-
State v. Wright
686 N.W.2d 295
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“ ‘the importance of the witnesses] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimo^ ny of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.’ ” Jones, d at 910 ( (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct.
-
State v. Greer
635 N.W.2d 82
Minn. 2001
1105 ; (plurality opinion)).
-
State v. Carillo
623 N.W.2d 922
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(violation of Confrontation Clause subject to harmless error analysis).
-
State v. Wildenberg
573 N.W.2d 692
Minn. 1998
(citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct.
-
State v. Byers
554 N.W.2d 744
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(a district court’s violation of the confrontation clause is subject to harmless error analysis); (applying harmless error analysis to court’s admission of hearsay).
-
State v. Jones
556 N.W.2d 903
Minn. 1996
e must consider several factors, including “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct.
-
State v. Crims
540 N.W.2d 860
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(quoting State v. Elijah, 206 Minn. 619, 624 , 289 N.W.
-
State v. Lanz-Terry
535 N.W.2d 635
Minn. 1995
1065, 1067-68 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); , 865 (Minn.1995) (plurality opinion).