Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kroshus, 447 N.W.2d 203.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But evidence of a witness’s prior allegations of sexual abuse alone “does not show a predisposition to fabricate.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Given these concerns, evidence of a victim’s sexual history is only admissible if an exception to rule 412 applies and if “the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature.” Olsen, d at 340; see also State v. Kroshus , (discussing evidence of a victim’s sexual history and stating that “the trial court must balance the probative value of the evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 203, 205 (Minn. App. 1989) (stating that the district court erred in excluding evidence of prior sexual abuse where the jury “could infer that [the victim] could not have made the 10 allegations involving [defendant] unless the events she described had occurred”), rev. de
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Toman Davin Matthews, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
23, 1996); rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellant argues that the Lopez-Ramos evid ence was relevant to establish that Lopez-Ramos, not appellant, was the source of the victim’s rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Caselaw supports Miller’s claims that “[a]ny evidence tending to establish a predisposition to fabricate a charge of rape should be admitted unless its potential for unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value.” (), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(concluding that error in excluding evidence of victim’s earlier sexual-abuse allegation was not prejudicial when the victim spontaneously reported sexual abuse, provided repeated consistent accounts of abuse by the defendant, provided a higher level of detail in allegations against the de
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Diaz relies on two cases to support his argument, review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But our caselaw does not hold testimony to be erroneous simply for including the word “penetration.” (stating that there was medical testimony that the victim had experienced vaginal penetration), review 6 denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
at 866 ; see, (developmentally disabled complainant), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
unless its potential for unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value.” (), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Hanninen 533 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Hanninen 533 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Jones 500 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Jones 500 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991