Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Steward, 645 N.W.2d 115.

61 citing documents.

State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
We have held that “[t]he district court has broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary matters and we will not overturn a district court’s evidentiary rulings unless appellant shows a clear abuse of discretion and that this abuse resulted in prejudice to him.”
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
2 “[E]vi-dence must be relevant to be admissible.”