Cited by

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

174 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Rene Mercedes Rivas-Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
801(d)(1)(B); –09 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Allen Germscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 902, 906-07 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Jarrett Thomas Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Sharmarke Sahal Musse 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.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Shane Zimmermann Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Romeo Singh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” -07 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Andre Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Rulings on evidentiary matters r est within the sound discretio n of the trial court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” -07 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Duane John BlackBull Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Wofford , d at 272).
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Susan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influe nces the jury’s decision.” State v. Nunn
State of Minnesota v. Marshall Andrew Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darnell Hampton Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Before the statement can be admitted, the witness’s credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’s credibility with respect to that aspect of th e witness’s credib ility that was challenged.” State v. Nunn
State of Minnesota v. Lance Arnold Kingbird Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Before the 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 witne ss’ credibility that was challenged.”
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Maurice Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Steven Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Amos, d at 203; s ee also State v. Nunn , (stating that, “[r]eversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision”).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Steven Mittelsted Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[B]efore the statement can be admitted, the witness ’ credibility must have been chall enged, and the statement must bolster the witness ’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness ’ credibility that was challenged.”
State of Minnesota v. James Richard Jerome Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Prior to admission “‘the witness’[s] credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’[s] credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’[s] credibility that was challenged.’” ().
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(-09 (Minn. 1997)), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 109 (-09 (Minn. 1997)).
Gary Cornelius Whitehurst v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gary Cornelius Whitehurst v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dante Christopher Horton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the [district] court abused its discretion in admitting the 4 evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.” d 902, 907 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
’s testimony and helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the declarant’s credibility as a witness.” An out-of-court statement is helpful to the trier of fact to evaluate the witness’ credibility when, the witness’ credibility has been challenged, and the statement bolsters “the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of: Natasha June Marie Courtney v. Barry Ishmael McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. K., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 109 (–09 (Minn. 1997)).
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But, appellant has not met his burden of showing that this evidence “substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”
Jerome Deon Nunn v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 2015
Jerome Deon Nunn v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dario Jothzan Abla-Salmeron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dario Jothzan Abla-Salmeron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal unless “the error substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal unless the error “substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 109; -09 (Minn. 1997) (holding that “before the statement can be admitted, the witness’ credibility must have been challenged”).
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015