Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153.

278 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Cap McCowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is often underreported.”
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2014)
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Eugene Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Eugene Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. McCoy –61 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But Minnesota appellate courts have traditionally “treated evidence that illuminates the history of the relationship between an accused and a victim differently from other, collateral Spreigl evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Antwon Common Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Antwon Common Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In 2004, the Minnesota Supreme Court expressly adopted section 634.20 “as a rule of evidence for the admission of evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the alleged victim of domestic abuse.”
Donald D. David v. Bartel Enterprises (Nitro Green), Relator, and SFM Mutual Insurance Company, Relator. 856 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Such evidence is generally admissible to illuminate the relationship between the accused and the alleged victim and provide a context with which the jury can “better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship.” (stating that relationship evidence includes evidence of a “strained relationship” that puts the incident between the accused and the victim in context), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
illuminates the history of the relationship between an accused and a victim.’” ( 161 (Minn. 2004)).
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
Within this class of evidence of other bad acts, we have distinguished traditional “collateral” Spreigl evidence, which concerns “an unrelated crime against another person,” not the present victim, from “evidence that illuminates the history of the relationship between an accused and a victim.” 161 (Minn. 2004) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the supreme court “expressly adopt[ed] Minn. Stat. § 634.20 as a rule of evidence for the admission of evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the alleged victim of domestic abuse.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Relationship evidence is treated differently than other “collateral” evidence, partly because “[d]omestic abuse is unique in that it typically occurs in the privacy of the home, it frequently involves a pattern of activity that may escalate over time, and it is often underreported.”
State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
§ 634.20.” (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
John Ward Gillman Engraved June 20, 1775 Copper Printing Plate v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. 806 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
John Ward Gillman Engraved June 20, 1775 Copper Printing Plate v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. 806 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, , 158 n. 3 (Minn. 2004) ("Having concluded that evidence of similar prior conduct was not admitted against respondent, we would not necessarily have to address the district court's ruling providing for the admission of evidence under Minn.Stat.
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
Willis, d at 184 ; In re Tracy, 197 Minn. 35, 46-47 , 266 N.W.
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Valentine 787 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Barnslater 786 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Section 634.20, which was expressly adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court as “a rule of evidence for the admission of evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the alleged victim of domestic abuse,” provides as follows: Evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic abuse, or against other family or household members, is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading t
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009