Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Amos, 347 N.W.2d 498.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
403; (identifying circumstances under which a “trial judge could reasonably have excluded the evidence in question as cumulative or unnecessary to the case, or as confusing on the precise issues in the case”).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In State v. Amos, for example, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony the appellant offered, reasoning that the excluded testimony restated or repeated reputation evidence that the jury had heard from other witnesses, and therefore, it was “cumulative or unnecessary to the case.” (discussing excluded testimony from a defendant claiming self-defense that he was aware of the victim’s police record and reputation for violen
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
(stating that evidence that the defendant chased the victim, took aim, and fired nine shots supported the jury’s determination of premeditation); (determining that a finding of premeditation was supported when the defendant had grabbed a gun, ran across a street, and shot his victim); (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support premeditation when the “defendant had to ma
In re the Matter of: Mikayla Lee Swanson, and on Behalf of Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Edward … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
13, 1991); State v. Amos
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
See, -67 (Minn.1993); -47 (Minn.1984).
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
(indicating the fact that the defendant armed himself and ran across the street to shoot a victim from close range is evidence of premeditation).
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
See, (“The law is well-settled in this state * * * that a failure to give such an instruction, absent a request by counsel, is not reversible error”).
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Under rule 609(a)(1), pri- or felony convictions not involving dishonesty or false statements are admissible if the court determines their probative value is greater than their prejudicial effect and the trial court’s determination on the subject “will be sustained unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.”
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
State v. Magee 413 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Magee 413 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(child under ten years old).
State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hagen 391 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hagen 391 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“The law is well settled in this state, however, that the failure to give such an instruction, absent a request by counsel, is not reversible error.”
State v. Provost 386 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Provost 386 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(impeachment by evidence of prior convictions); Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Daley 384 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daley 384 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Koop 380 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1986
State v. Koop 380 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1986
ing affair with one Shaw, would divorce him, defendant went on short vacation; when he returned and found that wife had moved out, he went to the place of employment of wife and Shaw and, after talking with Shaw, shot him seven times; held, trial court properly refused to submit heat-of-passion manslaughter because there was no evidentiary basis to support the provocation element); (after seeing victim in different car stopped at stop sign, defendant got out, ran up to victim’s car and shot him;
State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
State v. Graham 371 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1985
State v. Graham 371 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1985
State v. Fader 358 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1984
State v. Fader 358 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1984
Marriage of M.N.D. v. B.M.D. 356 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mnd v. Bmd 356 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of M.N.D. v. B.M.D. 356 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mnd v. Bmd 356 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Thompson, Minnesota Practice, Evidence, § 601.01 (1979), citing Rule 104(a), “[preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness * * ⅜ shall be determined by the court * * State ex rel.