Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lanz-Terry, 535 N.W.2d 635.
- State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The evidence must not be so attenuated as to be unconvincing because then the evidence is prejudicial and fails to support the argument of the party invoking the bias impeachment method.”
- State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
-
State v. Larson
787 N.W.2d 592
Minn. 2010
The evidence must not be so attenuated as to be unconvincing because then the evidence is prejudicial and fails to support the argument of the party invoking the bias impeachment method.”
- State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
- State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
- State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Cram
718 N.W.2d 898
Minn. 2006
(“[N]ot everything tends to show bias, and courts may exclude evidence that is only marginally useful for this purpose.”).
- State v. Tran 712 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Tran
712 N.W.2d 540
Minn. 2006
“Based on concerns about such things as harassment, decision making on an improper basis, con fusion of the issues, and cross-examination that is repetitive or only marginally relevant, the [district] court possesses wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination of a prosecution witness.”
- State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
State v. Whittle
685 N.W.2d 461
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
The supreme court has noted: “In criminal cases, the Confrontation Clause contemplates a cross-examination of the witness in which the defendant has the opportunity to reveal a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness.”
- State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
-
State v. Greer
635 N.W.2d 82
Minn. 2001
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (quoting 5 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence § 1395 (3d ed.1940))
- State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-
State v. Head
561 N.W.2d 182
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(discussing district court’s authority to limit scope of cross-examination).
- State v. Byers 554 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
State v. Byers
554 N.W.2d 744
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16 , 94 S.Ct.