Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vick, 632 N.W.2d 676.

189 citing documents.

Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Experts may testify to the characteristics commonly displayed by children who have been sexually abused, but testimony as to the child’s truthfulness is inadmissible because “the expert’s status may lend an unwarranted stamp of scientific legitimacy to the allegations.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A defendant bears a heavy burden to overturn a jury verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating on plain-error review that “the precise question before us is whether the trial court’s failure to sua sponte strike the testimony .
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
(“[W]hile trial courts are advised, even absent a request, to give a cautionary instruction upon the receipt of other-crimes evidence, failure to do so is not ordinarily reversible error.”); (“While a trial court should generally still provide [limit
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. N. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. N. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 195, 204 (Minn. 2005); (holding that when there is no objection, the issue on appeal is whether the district court’s failure to sua sponte strike testimony may be considered plain error).
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[O]rdinarily, a [district] court’s failure to sua sponte strike or instruct is not reversible error.”
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that nature of touching negated possibility of innocent explanation).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Thomas Labarre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “failure to sua sponte strike or instruct is not [ordinarily] reversible error”).
Daniel Justin Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Justin Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that nature of touching, specifically two instances of rubbing victim’s buttocks for minutes at a time accompanied by vaginal touching, negates possibility of innocent explanation and permits inference that defendant touched victim with sexual intent)
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antionee Jarmaine Mixon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antionee Jarmaine Mixon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 676, 690 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
is not whether the [district] court erred in admitting the testimony, because the court was not given the opportunity to make that decision.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Failure to object to the admission of evidence generally constitutes waiver of the right to appeal on that basis.” -85 (Minn. 2001).
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that circumstances of sexual contact “negate[d] the possibility of an innocent explanation such as accidental touching or touching in the course of car-egiving”).
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. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469-70 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by