Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Frank, 364 N.W.2d 398.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
See, e.g. , State v. Frank , (holdi ng that allowing impeachment with prior rape convictions in a rape trial was not an abuse of the 5 That does not mean, however, that a district court exercising its discretion is prohibited from considering the violent nature of the crime unde
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(affirming admissibility of two p rior rape convictions for impe a c h m e n t i n a t r i a l f o r criminal sexual conduct); State v. Bettin , (affirming admissibility of prior aggravated rape conviction although “bas ically the same” as the charged offense
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (holding that the admission of two rape convictions in a first-degree criminal -sexual-assault trial was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion); (approving impeachment evidence of a burglary conviction at a robbery trial).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to bar the use of two prior ra pe convictions for impeachment purposes when defendant was on trial for criminal sexual conduct); (holding that district court did not abuse its
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Theodore Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Gassler, d at 67 (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of an attempted second- degree murder conviction at a first-degree murder trial); 399 (Minn. 1985) (holding that the admission of two rape convictions at a first-degree criminal-sexual-assault trial was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion); Flemino, d at 329 (permitting the admission of a burglary conviction at a robbery trial)
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Vanhouse, d at 720; (upholding admission of prior rape convictions in first-degree criminal- sexual-conduct trial); Bettin, d at 546 (upholding admission of prior aggravated rape conviction in criminal-sexual-conduct trial after noting “fact that prior crime was basically the same crime with which defendant
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 64, 66-67 (prior second-degree attempted-murder conviction admissible in first-degree murder trial); (prior rape convictions admissible in first-degree-criminal-sexual-conduct trial).
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
504 (Minn.1999) (upholding first-degree murder conviction); -400 (Minn.1985) (upholding rape conviction); 408-09 (Minn.1984) (upholding first-degree murder conviction).
State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 583, 586-87 (affirming district court’s decision to allow admission of conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for impeachment purposes in a trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct); -99 (Minn.1985) (affirming district court’s decision to permit use of two prior rape convictions for impeachment purposes *212 in trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct).
State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Vanhouse 634 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Ihnot, d at 588 (finding no abuse of discretion in admitting a third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction for impeachment in a trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct); (affirming decision to allow impeachment by two prior rape convictions in trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct).
State v. Ihnot 575 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1998
State v. Ihnot 575 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 1998
Although it was a criminal sexual conduct, it involved an adolescent.” Also, the trial court’s decision in this case poses less of a risk than did the admission, for impeachment purposes, of two prior rape convictions in a trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Bahri argues that he has the right to present expert testimony regarding the victims’
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
See (prior sexual assault convictions properly admitted for impeachment purposes in trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct); (trial court properly made decision to admit second degree murder conviction for impeachment purposes in trial for first degree murder
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
this court upheld the trial court’s ruling that, in a trial for first degree criminal sexual assault, two other rape convictions were admissible for impeachment purposes.
State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
Again, a sexual assault case postdating Bouwman , we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony by an expert offered to show the possible effects of the complainant’s .14 blood alcohol level “on one’s ability to recall, one’s inhibitions, and so on.” We said: It does not f
State v. Larsen 442 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larsen 442 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986