Supreme Court of Minnesota· 7/27/2006

State v. Bell

Citations

719 N.W.2d 635
2006 Minn. LEXIS 510
2006 WL 2075137

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of two separate order-for-protection violations
stating that unfair prejudice means evidence that persuades the jury “by illegitimate'means, giving one party an unfair advantage” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
stating that unfairly prejudicial evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, [or] even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”
stating that unfair admission of relationship evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, [or] even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” (quotation omitted)
stating, “unfair prejudice is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage”
noting the “distinctions” made between rule 404(b) evidence and section 634.20 evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Page

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.