Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cermak, 365 N.W.2d 243.

78 citing documents.

State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The supreme court has defined “prejudice” as “ ‘the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.’ ” , 247 n. 2 (Minn.1985) (quoting 22 Charles A. Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5215, at 274-75 (1978) (footnote omitted)).
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
While using the evidence to show identity was harmful to Profit, evidence is unfairly prejudicial, and thus excludable, only if used “to persuade by illegitimate means.” Townsend, d at 296 ( , 246 n. 2 (Minn.1985)).
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
Prejudice in this context “ ‘does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.’ ” n. 2 (Minn.1985) (citation omitted).
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
This court has defined prejudice “to mean only ‘the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.’ ” ( , 247 n. 2 (Minn.1985)).
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” , 247 n. 2 (Minn.1985) (quoting 22 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure-Evidence § 5215 (1978)).
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
“Prejudice” means only the “unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” ( , 247 n. 2 (Minn. 1985)).
State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
we defined “prejudice” to mean only “the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” Id.
State v. Dukes 544 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1996
State v. Dukes 544 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1996
for the proposition that “generally evidence of a plea of guilty * * * is not admissible to prove the guilt or lack of guilt of the accused.” -07 (Minn.1983) (suggesting that the criminal complaint of an accomplice might be inadmissible hearsay that dep
State v. Chao Yang 533 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
"In Rule 403, 'prejudice' does not mean the damage to the opponent's case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence, rather it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” , 247 n. 2 (Minn.1985) (quoting 22 Charles Wright and Kenneth Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure—Evidence § 5215 at 275 (1978)); see also Frisinger, d at 32 (emphasizing that it is wrong to equate "the legitimate probative force of
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
(a) We have said a number of times that “a police officer testifying in a criminal case may not, under the guise of explaining how [the] investigation focused on defendant, relate hearsay statements of others.”
State v. Axford 417 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1987
State v. Axford 417 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1987
247 at n. 2 (Minn.1985), we agreed with Professor Wright that the unfair prejudice spoken of in R. 403 "does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence" but "refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by i
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
Others are State v. (Alice) Cermak, State v. (James) Cermak, and State v. (John) Cermak