# State v. Richardson

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · October 23, 2003 · 670 N.W.2d 267

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655315

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jamie Glenn RICHARDSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** October 23, 2003
- **Citations:** 670 N.W.2d 267; 2003 Minn. LEXIS 650; 2003 WL 22410830
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hanson
- **Judges:** Anderson, Russell, Hanson, Meyer
- **Cited by:** 63 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655315

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[i]f the constitutional right to a fair opportunity to defend against the charge means anything, it must empower a court to override a state evidence rule that would bar the defendant from presenting evidence that could create a reasonable, non-speculative doubt …
- explaining that a criminal defendant’s constitutional "right to present a defense is not without limitations” and therefore defendants "must comply with procedural and evidentia-ry rules” even where such rules limit a defendant's ability to present his version of the facts
- stating that Sixth Amendment concerns may enter into the picture when it is the defendant who is seeking to present other crimes evidence and that there may well be situations when the clear and convincing rule may have the potential to operate unconstitutionally
- stating error warrants reversal if “there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] complained of may have contributed to the conviction.” (alteration in original) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967))
- stating that justification for homicide in defense of others parallels self-defense when concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding character evidence about the victim

## Opinion text

HANSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Meyer.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655315. Public record. Not legal advice.