Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nunn, 561 N.W.2d 902.
- State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[B]efore 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 witness’ credibility that was challenged.”
- State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn
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. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But the erroneous admission of evidence does not warrant reversal unless the error “substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”
- State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
to an investigator can also be admissible as substantive evidence if (1) “the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing”; (2) the declarant “is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement”; (3) the statement is “consistent with the declarant’s testimony”; and (4) the statement is “helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the declarant’s credibility as a witness.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But the erroneous admission of evidence does not warrant reversal unless the error “substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”
- State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
- State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-
State v. Hormann
805 N.W.2d 883
Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, e.g., State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128 , -27 (1972) (affirming admissibility of evidence of victim’s threats to report older crimes because the evidence established a motive for the charged killing); (affirming admissibility of evidence of kidnapping that occurred one month before the charged killing because the kidnapping evidence established the motive for the killing).
- State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
-
State v. Palmer
803 N.W.2d 727
Minn. 2011
See, (concluding that the actions the defendant *736 would take to retrieve money and drugs that he believed were stolen and to punish those responsible were related to motive and relevant to premeditation).
- State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
- State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
- State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
- State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
- State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
- State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
- State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
- State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
- State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Burrell
772 N.W.2d 459
Minn. 2009
mit the charged offense.” , 608 n. 8 (Minn.2006) (holding that evidence of prior murder was admissible to prove motive for a defendant who subsequently killed a witness to the original murder); (holding graffiti evidence admissible to show that gang affiliation was motive for murder was proper); -08 (Minn.1997) (holding prior kidnapping conviction admissible where kidnapping victim told the defendant that the subsequent murder victim had stolen drugs and money from the defendant); (approving the
- State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Jackson
770 N.W.2d 470
Minn. 2009
(); (“Reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.”).
- In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius
765 N.W.2d 411
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
t is “consistent with the de-clarant’s testimony and helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the declarant’s credibility as a witness.” Before a statement can be admitted under this rule, the “witnesses] 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. Anderson 763 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2009
- State v. Anderson 763 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2009
- Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
- Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
- State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
- State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
- State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Valtierra
718 N.W.2d 425
Minn. 2006
6 As an evidentiary error not affecting constitutional rights, improperly admitted underlying-facts evidence will not require reversal unless “ ‘the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.’ ” Chomnarith, d at 665 (); see also Norgaard, 272 Minn, at 52, d at 631 (determining that it was error to inquire into the age of a rape victim after the fact of the rape conviction was properly admitted as impeachment, but that the error was not prejudicial enough to merit reversal).
- State v. Tran 712 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2006
- State v. Tran 712 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2006
- State v. Zulu 706 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-
State v. Zulu
706 N.W.2d 919
Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[B]efore 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 witness’ credibility that was challenged.”
- State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
-
State v. Blanche
696 N.W.2d 351
Minn. 2005
“Reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” DeShay, d at 888 ().
- State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004