Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stewart, 643 N.W.2d 281.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Travis Joel Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-98 (Minn. 2002) (listing the five factors with conjunctive “and”).
State of Minnesota v. James Rodney Schertner Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A defendant claiming that the district court erred in admitting evidence must demonstrate that the admission was both erroneous and prejudicial.”
State of Minnesota v. Karl Evald Auleciems Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[D]emonstrative or illustrative evidence is admitted, when properly verified, to illustrate or express the testimony of a competent witness.”
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shane Kenneth Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(appl ying these factors when determining whether erroneously admitted Spreigl evidence significantly affected the verdict); (same).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Joseph Shafer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Alvin Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The truth of the facts sought to be admitted must be “ highly probable.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart , , 292 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
He asserts that the images embellished the actual prints by depicting “well-defined foot or shoeprints” where the crime scene photos show “a muddled mess with a few clearly distinguishable footprints.” Computer-generated animation is admissible if it “is relevant and accurate and assists the jury in understanding the testimony of a witness.”
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
In the context of revers e-Spreigl evidence, the evidence must “clearly show the person’s direct participation in the other crime.” ().
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
We must consider whether “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” ( and citing cases indicating that this standard applies where the error does not affect a defendant’s constitutional rights).
State v. Brown 732 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 2007
State v. Brown 732 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 2007
State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
Error is harmless if the verdict rendered was “surely not attributable to the error.”
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002