Legal Opinion
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided December 30, 2015No. A14-275PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Justice.
The question-presented by this case is whether the district court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of an Alford plea entered during a previous criminal proceeding regarding the same course of conduct from being considered in a subsequent civil trial. The civil jury found respondent Ralph Liebsch not liable for sexual assault and battery against appellant Jane Doe 136. The court of appeals affirmed. Because we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion, we affirm.
Doe first encountered Liebsch in the summer of 2000, when Doe was 7 years…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Nelson M. Blohm and Joann M. Blohm v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
- State v. BolteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- People v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- State v. GouletteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, RespondentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- MARTIN v. PHILLIPSSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- Jason Daniel Gustafson, Relator v. Commissioner of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Sylvester JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
- MARTIN v. PHILLIPSSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.