State v. Carroll
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction on the ground that the district court abused its discretion in excluding cross-examination, testimony, and closing argument about the victim’s prior inconsistent statements that already been heard by the jury. Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in these exclusions, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
FACTS
Appellant George Carroll and his wife Amanda invited Rhoedisha Annis, her husband Brian, and her daughter D.D., then 12, to move into the Carrolls’ apartment temporarily. In March 1999, while the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. PostSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- State v. CrimsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- State v. FriendSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re the Welfare of D.D.R.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. WentheCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- State v. OlsenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- State v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
- In Re the Welfare of D.D.R.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.