Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Friend, 493 N.W.2d 540.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
(“In certain cases the due process clause, the right to confront accusers, or the right to present evidence will require admission of evidence otherwise excluded by the rape shield law.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The district court has “discretion to admit photographs, even ghastly ones, so long as they show something that a witness could describe and are material to some relevant issue.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[i]n certain cases the due process clause, the right to confront accusers, or the right to present evidence will require [the] admission of evidence otherwise excluded by the rape shield law”).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
412; (noting that the rape-shield law limits admission of.
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robbin Alexander McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although photographic exhibits of tangible evidence should be used with caution, see, we agree with the district court that the photograph in this case had a relatively small potential for undue prejudice.
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Despite the prohibition of a rape-shield law or rule, a trial court has discretion to admit evidence tending to establish a source of knowledge of or familiarity with sexual matters in circumstances where the jury otherwise would likely infer that the defendant was the source of the knowledge.” (“In certain cases the due process clause, the right to confront accusers, or the right to present evidence will require admission of evidence otherwise excluded by the rape shield law.”); (“[E]vidence [
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
al and whether the exculpatory value of the lost or destroyed evidence was apparent and material.” (explaining that State’s intentional release of the motor vehicle in which the victims were killed did not violate McDonough’s right to due process because McDonough failed to show that the evidence had exculpatory value)
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
photos were relevant to show elements of first-degree and second-degree murder and admissible where medical examiner testified to cause of death and probable killing during sexual assault); Dunn, d at 433 (holding that State did not introduce excessive number of autopsy photos corroborating examiner and eyewitness testimonies, nor *31 was the content unduly prejudicial); (holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to admit graphic photos where trial court “reviewed each photo
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Carroll 639 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Carroll 639 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Morris 606 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2000
State v. Morris 606 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2000
(applying rape shield law protections to a murder victim because the state must also prove the elements of sexual assault to convict for first-degree-murder committed during a sexual assault).
State v. Rader 597 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Rader 597 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(for claim of lost or destroyed evidence to be reversible error, defendant must show destruction was intentional and exculpatory value of evidence was apparent and material).
State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(listing elements for destruction of evidence appeal).
State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993