Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ferguson, 581 N.W.2d 824.

172 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Earl Jay Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” State v. Ferguson , d 824, 835 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Davis Fratzke Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[O]ne witness cannot vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.”
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
During the district court’s final instructions to the jury, it told the jury that “the arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence.” “ We assume that the jury follows a court’s instructions.”
State of Minnesota v. Laurie Ann McIntyre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We assume that the jury follows a court’s instructions.”
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Minor, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
833 (Minn. 1998); (providing that the “third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of [the] harmless error analysis” and analyzing the four factors outlined in Ferguson).
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Beliad Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 (assuming that jurors follow jury instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Bee Forrest Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Accordin gly, “one witness cannot vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.” State v. Ferguson
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 824, 836 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Geral Leanerd Halbert Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Kaiser Minn. Ct. App. 2018
may not be proved by extrinsic evidence,” and it is well established that an examining attorney who “inquires into collateral matters on cross -examination, including those matters relating to the witness’ credibility, is bound by the answers he receives.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cristian Albert Genchi-Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul Omol Arkangelo Uchodu v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Scott Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Michael Benson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A limiting instruction to the jury mitigates the potential for unfair prejudice, see State v. Kennedy , and we assume that jurors follow the district court’s instructions
State of Minnesota v. James Richard Jerome Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 824, 835 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Arnes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Arnes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Louis Duane Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Louis Duane Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A limiting instruction to the jury mitigates the potential for unfair prejudice, and we assume that the jury follows the district court’s instructions
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
29, 2008); (stating that this court assumes that a jury follows the district court’s instructions).
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
29, 2008); (stating that this court assumes that a jury follows the district court’s instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Michael Bohumil Minn. Ct. App. 2016
These cautionary instructions “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.” Lindsey, d at 757 (quotation omitted); (stating we assume the jury follows a district court’s instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that we assume the jury follows a district court’s instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
See Taylor, d at 207 (stating that “[w]e presume that the jury follow[s] the court’s instructions,” and declining to order a new trial on a claim of misstated evidence ().
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(observing that the court assumes that the jury follows a district court's instruction).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
tial element of the crime under section 609.229, and that exclusion of such evidence would “render[] convictions under [that section] nearly impossible to obtain”); –77 (Minn. 2009) (holding that, despite danger of unfair prejudice, expert testimony about gangs was admissible to prove that the defendant committed murder to benefit a gang); –35 (Minn. 1998) (holding that evidence of gang graffiti in defendant’s bedroom was highly prejudicial but admissible in first-degree murder case because it w
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