Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Goldenstein, 505 N.W.2d 332.

56 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
imony consistent with a prior statement; (2) the declarant is subject to cross-examination regarding the prior statement; (3) the declarant’s credibility has been challenged; and (4) the declarant’s prior statement 4 “CornerHouse is a private independent agency that interviews victims of alleged child abuse who are referred from child protection and law enforcement.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. William Gray Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
also testified 2 “CornerHouse is a private independent agency that interviews victims of alleged child abuse who are referred from child protection and law enforcement.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. J. S. I., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. J. S. I., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
While 2 “CornerHouse is a private independent agency that interviews victims of alleged child abuse who are referred from child protection and law enforcement.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Cross-Examination “A new trial may be required for prosecutorial misconduct where the state asks questions which by innuendo may lead to a prejudicial supposition as to the existence of 15 facts that cannot be proved.” –46 (Minn. App. 1993) (), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
1 “CornerHouse is a private independent agency that interviews victims of alleged child abuse who are referred from child protection and law enforcement.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. Oct 19, 1993).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 332, 340 (Minn. App. 1993), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Bryan Morgan Holl, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-48 (Minn. App. 1993), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Path Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Path Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The Waddell court’s statement refers to a doctrine that neither party addressed in briefing: opening the door to evidence that is otherwise inadmissible.1 The supreme court 1 rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Dwayne Thurston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Dwayne Thurston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Bradley Lanphear Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Bradley Lanphear Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Thus, evidence of a prior false accusation of sexual abuse by a child complainant “is admissible to challenge the credibility of the children and as substantive evidence tending to prove the current offense did not occur,” and excluding such evidence “violates a defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-48 (Minn. App. 1993), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Toman Davin Matthews, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
However, prior false accusations of sexual abuse by an alleged victim are relevant to attack th e alleged victim’s credibility, b ut only “ if there has been a determination that the prior accusations were indeed fabricated.” State v. Goldenstein , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Clayton Douglas Groves, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. C. U., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
He contends that the evidence that he sought to elicit related to prior false allegations of sexual assault and that eviden ce of false allegations was not barred by the rape shield law but rather wa s review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
–45 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” See State v. Goldenstein , (noting that the expert witness testified that the results of an examination were “consistent with” sexual abuse), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-48 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Explained State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Goldstein , review denied (Minn. Oct.
A17-0191 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 332 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
0 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 Second, Corr argues that S.B.’s review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
based on newly discovered evidence that is merely “cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful,” this court found “persuasive the rule of law established in several foreign jurisdictions whereby evidence of prior false accusations is admissible both to attack the credibility of the complainant and as substantive evidence tending to prove that the instant offense did not occur.” d 332, 340 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
He appears to assume that rule 608(b), by itself, makes the evidence inadmissible, but he contends that this court “created an exception to 608(b)” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3(a) (2012), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We have held that “prior accusations of rape are relevant only to the victim’s propensity to be truthful if there has been a determination that the prior accusations were indeed fabricated.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wheeler’s review denied (Minn. Oct.
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[T]he trial court must first make a threshold determination outside the presence of the jury that a reasonable probability of falsity exists.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Duane Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Duane Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Because the sentencing guidelines in effect when the offense is committed govern, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Danforth 573 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Danforth 573 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
review denied (Minn. Oct.