Minnesota Lawyer
On appeal from his conviction of second-degree assault and theft of a motor vehicle, appellant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the District Court erred by denying his request to call a witness to testify about the victim’s prior inconsistent statement regarding the nature and extent of her injuries from the assault. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding extrinsic evidence of the witness’s prior statement because the witness was never afforded the opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement. Affirmed.
A14-1889 State v. Williams (Hennepin County)
