Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 595. WITNESSES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 595.07 (2026)

Convicted Person As Witness

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every person convicted of crime shall be a competent witness in any civil or criminal proceeding, but the conviction may be proved for the purpose of affecting the weight of the testimony, either by the record or by the convicted person's cross-examination, upon which the convicted person shall answer any proper question relevant to that inquiry; and the party cross-examining shall not be concluded by the convicted person's answer thereto.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1965–1997 · leading case: State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Griese, 565 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 8× “See Minn.Stat. § 595.07 (1996); Minn. R. Evid.”
State v. West, 173 N.W.2d 468 (Minn. 1969). · cites it 6× “This court has consistently adhered to the ruling that § 595.07 applies to all crimes — felonies, gross misdemeanors, and misdemeanors — regardless of whether or not the crime is one which affects the weight of the witness' testimony.”
State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1978). · cites it 2× “Had the defendant taken the stand and had the trial court allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine him, we could base a decision on a complete record without going beyond the matters actually raised at trial.”
City of St. Paul v. DiBucci, 229 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. 1975). · cites it 6× “07 provides in relevant part: "Every person convicted of crime shall be a competent witness in any civil or criminal proceeding, but his conviction may be proved for the purpose of affecting the weight of his testimony * *.”
State v. Norgaard, 136 N.W.2d 628 (Minn. 1965). “Defendant contends that it was prejudicial error for the prosecuting attorney to refer to the age of the girl involved in the previous offense and that such prejudice was not removed by the trial court’s sustaining the objection. It is the contention of the state on the other…”
State v. Mastrian, 171 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 1969). “9 § 595.07. 10 See, 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, §§ 405 and 490.”
Vaughn v. Love, 347 N.W.2d 818 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “itted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting…”
State v. Senske, 190 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. 1971). “Defendant will not be allowed to refuse to testify, hoping that the jury will acquit him, and still have the option for a reversal by testing the constitutionality of § 595.07 upon conviction. Affirmed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.