DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 593 N.W.2d 227.

99 citing documents.

  • Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota 869 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2015
  • Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota 869 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2015
    State v. Williams (Williams I)
  • State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
    (“[W]hile trial courts are advised, even absent a request, to give a cautionary instruction upon the receipt of other-crimes evidence, failure to do so is not ordinarily reversible error.”); (“While a trial court should generally still provide [limiting] instructions sua sponte to ensure that the 404(b) evidence is not used for an improper purpose, the failure to provide limiting instructions absent a request is not reversible error.”)
  • State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
  • Followed State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
    We have since held that “in challenging the seating of a juror, the appellant need only show that the juror was biased, not that the bias resulted in actual prejudice.” (citing Logan, d at 324); see also Holt, d at 477 (quoting Logan, d at 324).
  • State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    But “the failure to provide limiting instructions absent a request is not reversible error.”2 cert.
  • State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (“[W]e have on numerous occasions recognized the inherent value of evidence of past acts of violence committed by the same defendant against the same victim.”), cert.
  • State of Minnesota v. Raymond Eugene Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Raymond Eugene Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
    629 n. 2 (Minn.2007); (stating that the challenging party bears the burden to prove actual bias).
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Our supreme court has “on numerous occasions recognized the inherent [probative] value of evidence of past acts of violence committed by the same defendant against the same victim.” (alteration in original) ().
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    at 1196-97 ; -35 (Minn.1999).
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
    “[W]e have on numerous occasions recognized the inherent value of evidence of past acts of violence committed by the same defendant against the same victim.”
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has “on numerous occasions recognized the inherent [probative] value of evidence of past acts of violence committed by the same defendant against the same victim.” (“Evidence bearing on the defendants relationship with the victim ...
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
    (quotation and citation omitted); Minn. R. Evid.
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
    r, (“While the trial court clearly should have given the instructions sua sponte and while it is conceivable that a case may arise where the facts are such that a failure to give these instructions sua sponte may constitute plain error of a prejudicial nature requiring * * * a new trial, we find that a new trial is not required in this case.”); (“[Ajlthough the failure to give limiting instructions [in connection with the admission of relationship evidence] in certain circumstances may constitut
  • State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -37 (Minn.1999) (admitting evidence of past acts of violence towards the victim to show premeditation), cert.
  • Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    1(7) (requiring state to disclose “material and information in the possession or control of members of the prosecution staff and of any others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case”); (whether prosecutors actually knew of evidence not dispositive for Brady purposes; individual prosecutors have duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf, including the police), cert.
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (holding that before admitting “relationship” evidence, court must find it to be shown by clear and convincing evidence and to have probative value outweighing potential for unfair prejudice); (same).
  • State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The supreme court has “on numerous occasions recognized the inherent [probative] value of evidence of past acts of violence committed by the same defendant against the same victim.”
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
    We recently held that using the standard cautionary jury instructions with pri- or acts evidence “helps ensure that the jury uses the evidence only for the permissible purposes espoused in Rule 404(b) or our case law, and not to convict the defendant on the basis of the prior bad acts.”
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999