Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nunn, 561 N.W.2d 902.

174 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jordan Hunter Cole Vos Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Ali Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Reversal is 16 warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.”
State of Minnesota v. Steven John Stolp-Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
11 But such a statement is not admissible unless the witness’s credibility has been challenged and the statement will “bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”
State of Minnesota v. Sylvester Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Gale Lanham Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Gale Lanham Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.”); Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Shane Joseph Gross Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Shane Joseph Gross Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Terry Soloman Price Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jacob James Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Deshawn Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Scott Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But such a statement is not admissible unless the witness’s credibility has been challenged and the statement will “bolster the witness’[s] credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’[s] credibility that was challenged.”
State of Minnesota v. Joe Cecil Sistrunk Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(noting that “before the statement can be admitted, the witness’ credibility must have been challenged”).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Delaney Rayshawn Burks Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Herman Bobo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jaundale Maurice Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See State v. Nunn , d 902, 907 (Minn. 1997) (stating that a defendant has the burden of proving that the district court abused its discretion when ruling on an evidentiary issue).
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. Jacob Daniel McPheeters Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Darrick Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Rosas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
801(d)(1)(B); -09 (Minn. 1997) (affirming admission of witness’s testimony about her prior out-of- court statement); -10 (Minn. App. 2000) (affirming admission of videotaped interview of victim on ground that victim’s testimony was central to case), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Frank James Bigbear Minn. Ct. App. 2023
, A22-0290 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Nathanael John Prevo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
To show prejudice under harmless-error review, the appellant must establish “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted); see also State v. Nunn , (stating that on appeal the defendant has the burden to establish both that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence and that the defendant was prejudiced as a result).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Harun Warsame Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Schoonover Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Rene Gabriel-Ramos Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Jesus Pomavilla Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Brian Ford Dowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Linden Gene McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. James Antrquier Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he [out-of- court] statement must bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Mathew Hubert Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kim Dale Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Foster Cole Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Precious Sylvanna Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, before a prior consistent statement can be admitted, “the witness’ credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Clarke Spottswood Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We will reverse “only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” State v. DeShay , ().
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Henderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-07 (Minn. 1997).9 But even if the district court abuses its discretion, “we reverse only if the exclusion of eviden ce was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Bradly James Haddock Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kerrell Levell Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Generally, “evidence showing that the accused has committed another crime unrelated to the crime for which he or she is on trial is inadmissible because it is not competent to prove one crime by proving another.” 8 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Jon Dorien Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 902, 906-07 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Earl Strother Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Before a prior consistent statement is admissible as non-hearsay evidence, “the witness’ credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.” d 902, 909 (Minn. 1997) .