State v. Dimler

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Richmond

    298 Minn. 561 (Minn. 1974)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that even if prejudicial testimony was improperly presented to the jury, the supreme court would not reverse because evidence of defendant's guilt was so strong that it was very unlikely that the prejudicial item played a substantial part in convincing the jury to convict

    We believe that the photographs, as well as the glasses the victim was wearing at the time of the crime, were admissible to corroborate the victim's testimony about the beating he received from defendant and his accomplice. See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 194 N.W.2d 590 (1972); State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785 (1939). Additionally, the photograph of the victim was admissible to corroborate the victim's testimony that he was unable to identify defendant from photographs shown him in the hospital because of his physical condition after the beating.

  2. State v. Dingfelder

    204 N.W.2d 447 (Minn. 1973)

    With respect to the denial of the change of venue motion, see, State v. Annis, 291 Minn. 552, 192 N.W.2d 419 (1971). On the issue of admissibility of the photographs, see, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 194 N.W.2d 590 (1972), and State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785 (1939). Affirmed.

  3. State v. Keaton

    258 Minn. 359 (Minn. 1960)   Cited 40 times
    In State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 104 N.W.2d 650 (1960), we noted that evidence of the victim's reputation for violence and quarrelsomeness may be admitted in self-defense cases for the purpose of determining (1) whether the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm or (2) who was the aggressor.

    State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427, 63 N.W.2d 387, 393. State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 85, 287 N.W. 785, 786. 4. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence that sometime prior to the killing Farrell had been convicted of the crime of "larceny against the person."

  4. State v. Billington

    63 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 1954)   Cited 47 times
    Declining to grant a new trial when district court made inaccurate, but inadvertent, statements in jury instructions, concluding that defendant had "not been prejudiced through the impairment of substantial rights essential to a fair trial"

    Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274, 88 N.W. 754; see, State v. Lytle, 214 Minn. 171, 7 N.W.2d 305; State v. Solum, 183 Minn. 36, 235 N.W. 390; State v. Hagen, 160 Minn. 408, 200 N.W. 480; State v. O'Connor, 154 Minn. 45, 191 N.W. 50; 6 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. § 9798. State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 41 N.W.2d 313, 15 A.L.R. 2d 1137; State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785; State v. Barnett, 193 Minn. 336, 258 N.W. 508; 5 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 2490. State v. Wilson, 238 Minn. 447, 57 N.W.2d 412, is distinguishable from the case here.

  5. Johnson v. Larson

    49 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. 1951)   Cited 5 times
    In Johnson v. Larson, 234 Minn. 505, 49 N.W.2d 8, this court held that the negligence of Larson in not putting out flares continued until the cars collided.

    Since one of the items of damage, and the most important one, was the loss of attractiveness, we feel that the court did not abuse its discretion in receiving the exhibit in evidence. 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 792; State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785. We find no errors that require a reversal.