Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Van Buren v. State, 556 N.W.2d 548.

74 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Id.; - 52 (Minn. 1996) (holding that eliciting testimony of witnesses saying they believed the victim constituted improper vouching).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Koskela, (police officer’s testimony that he “had no doubt” a witness was truthful raised concerns of vouching); -551 (Minn. 1996) (police officer testimony that victim told him that defendant’s wife believed the victim’s story constituted vouching).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Frank James Bigbear Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Frank James Bigbear Minn. 2024
ely, I.M.’s recorded 15 statement about contracting chlamydia from Bigbear was sufficiently pointed that it was likely difficult to un-ring that bell with the jury.9 Fourth, improper vouching typically occurs when the State “intentionally elicited vouching testimony during trial and then used it in closing argument.” (holding that the trial testimony of three witnesses about who among the victim’s and defendant’s families believed the victim’s allegations was “improper vouching”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Toman Davin Matthews, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Van Buren v. State , (reversing for a new trial because defendant was prejudiced by admission of vouching testimony).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Van Buren v. State , -52 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
For example, the district court erred by admitting testimony from multiple witnesses concerning whether members of the young victim’s family believed her allega tions of sexual abuse by her uncle.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-50 (Minn. 1996) (reversing for a new trial be cause the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of vouching testimony).
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-52 (Minn. 1996), a case in which the supreme court found that testimony that family members believed a 14-year-old girl’s accusations of sexual assault constituted improper vouching and warranted a new trial.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellant relies on Van Buren v. State , to support his argument.
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Wayne Hannine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Wayne Hannine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ing of the words ‘practiced’ and ‘testimony.’ While a four-year-old child may know the meaning of the word ‘practice,’ the Court finds it is unlikely that a four-year-old child understands the meaning of the word ‘testimony.’ E.’s ability to testify was not “comparable to that of many adult witnesses.”2 2 (concluding that admission of testimony from 14-year-old complainant, her 12-year-old friend, and a police officer that some members of the complainant’s family believed the 7 Finally, appellan
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
-94 (Minn.2011) (discussing relevance to evaluating complainant’s credibility of evidence explaining the reasons why a complainant delayed reporting a sexual assault); (same).
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
(noting that in general “were they lying” questions are improper); (concluding that prosecutor’s elicitation of testimony from witnesses that they believed the victim’s version of events was improper); -10 (Minn.1984) (“With respect to most crimes the credibility of a witness is peculiarly within the competence of the jury, whose co
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
-52 (holding that district court committed plain error by allowing testimony that witnesses believed the complainant’s story about sexual assaults).
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
In Re the Welfare of S.S.E. 629 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of S.S.E. 629 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating even if party failed to object, this court will consider plain error affecting substantial rights if error’s effect denied defendant a fair trial).
State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(); (requiring “good reason” to overlook defendant’s failure to object).