Cited by

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

169 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Raymond Eugene Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mannie Lamar Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Courts presume that juries follow the instructions they are given.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The credibility of a witness is for the jury to decide.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“‘[P]rejudice’ 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.”
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
In reaching our conclusion that Matthews failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the admission of the “fear scent” testimony significantly affected the verdict
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[W]here gang evidence is relevant as to motive, it may be admitted.” (-35 (Minn.1998)).
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
(noting that the jury instruction is a factor in finding that any error in the prosecutor’s statement is nonprejudicial); (observing that the court assumes that the jury follows a district court’s instruction); (ruling that jury instructions are relevant to the analysis of misconduct).
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
ensity-based motive theory for why the defendant committed the prior bad acts: “if not for the bad acts, the defendant would have had no reason to commit the charged offense.” , 608 n. 8 (Minn.2006) (holding that evidence of prior murder was admissible to prove motive for a defendant who subsequently killed a witness to the original murder); (holding graffiti evidence admissible to show that gang affiliation was motive for murder was proper); -08 (Minn.1997) (holding prior kidnapping conviction
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
9 *484 we said that, when the State presented a theory of a gang-related murder, the defendant’s gang affiliation “was essential to the state’s proof of motive.” Consequently, we concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting photographs of gang graffiti and testimony explaining
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
404(b); -35 (Minn.1998).
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
We articulated the factors that govern a (citing Maurer v. Department of Corrections, 32 F.3d 1286, 1289 (8th Cir.1994)).
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
See also, (upholding admission of Spreigl evidence to show that motive for murder was to silence witness on outstanding robbery charges against defendant); (allowing Spreigl evidence to show that gang affiliation was motive for murder).
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
(holding that the admission of non-crime related evidence of gang affiliation did not violate Rule 404(b) because the evidence tended to show the defendant’s motive for murdering a rival gang member).
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
reh’g denied (Minn. Aug.
Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
It is well settled that one witness may not “vouch for or against the credibility of another witness.”
State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
State v. Schulz 691 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2005
-35 (Minn.1998), reh’g denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005