Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vanhouse, 634 N.W.2d 715.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Vanhouse , (noting that cautionary jury instructions regarding the proper use of impeachment evidence weighed against any prejudice in possible erroneous admission), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And even if a district court “abused its discretion by ruling that [a] conviction could be used for impeachment,” we will not grant relief if there is no reasonable possibility that the ruling “significantly affected the verd ict.” State v. Vanhouse , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
609(a)); (applying Jones factors to Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
10 (indicating that we review an erroneous ruling under rule 609 under the harmless -error standard) , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 715, 719 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This is not simply a case of a failure to make a record of the Jones analysis, see, (affirming when the district court applied the correct standard but failed to make a record of the Jones factors and application of the Jones factors showed that the prior conviction was admissible), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
aff’d, d 789 (Minn. 2013); review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
aff’d, review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Id.; aff’d, review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(analyzing the jury’s questions about the Spreigl evidence only after concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(reviewing Jones factors and finding harmless error after district court failed to make a record of its Jones analysis), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Utter 773 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The erroneous admission of evidence is “harmless if there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)); (applying the Post standard to the erroneous admission of a conviction for impeachment), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. Dec.