Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419.

96 citing documents.

State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“[W]hen a witness is the defendant in a criminal proceeding, cross-examination as to the witness’s prior convictions may ordinarily extend only to the fact of conviction, the nature of the offense, and the identity of the defendant.”
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The general rule established by the supreme court “is that expert psychiatric testimony on whether a defendant was capable of forming the requisite mens rea for the crime charged is admissible only in the second phase of a bifurcated trial when the defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.”
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Further, we have stated that the effects of intoxication are within common knowledge of lay people, and it is generally known that alcohol impairs both mental and physical capacity.
State v. Bird 734 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2007
State v. Bird 734 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2007
I. We review a district court’s exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion, and any error in excluding such testimony is subject to harmless error analysis.
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(reviewing district-court decision to limit scope of expert-witness testimony about mental condition of defendant charged with first-degree murder).
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
n of innocence, Salitros, d at 818 , or the burden of proof, interjecting the prosecutor’s personal opinion about the veracity of witnesses, inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury, Porter, d at 363-64 ; disparaging the defendant’s defense to the charges, and injecting race into the case when race is not relevant, Cabrera, d at 475 .
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
But the underlying-facts exclusion is not an iron-clad rule, and we have held that “ ‘the scope of * * * cross-examination [regarding prior convictions] must be left largely to the discretion of the [trial] court depending upon the circumstances.’ ” (second alteration in original) (quoting Norgaard , 272 Minn, at 51, d at 631 ) (the district court was within its discretion allowing underlying-facts evidence against defense’s expert psychiatrist when the “prior convictions relate[d] directly to t
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
We have “repeatedly warned prosecutors that it is improper to disparage the defense in closing arguments * * * .”
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
803 *556 (Minn.App.1992).
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
1306 , 122 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993); (stating that because most jurors have some experience with mental illness and intoxication, expert psychiatric testimony as to the effects of those conditions is generally inadmissible).
State v. Pero 590 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1999
State v. Pero 590 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1999
(Tomljanovich, J., dissenting) (quoting Hale, 201 U.S. at 59 , 26 S.Ct.