Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Saponen, 205 Minn. 358.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358, 364-65, 285 N.W.
Brandenberg v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358, 361 , 285 N.W.
Colby v. Gibbons 276 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
In order for a party to impeach his own witness, he cannot merely be disappointed by the response of the witness, see, State v. Guy, 259 Minn. 67 , he must be genuinely surprised, see, State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , 285 N.W.
State v. Gustafson 266 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1978
See, State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , 285 N.W.
State v. Marchand 225 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1975
We held in State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , that a prior inconsistent statement is admissible only to impeach the credibility of the maker and that the jury could not consider the prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence of the facts related therein.
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , Fjell-man v. Weller, 213 Minn. 457 , State v. Dahlgren, 259 Minn. 307 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , State v. Johnson, 289 Minn. 346
State v. Spencer 216 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
State v. Spencer 216 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
This court in State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358, 361 , 285 N. W. *463 898, 900 (1939), set forth the rule on impeachment testimony which has since been followed and favorably cited: “The rule is well settled that the only office of impeaching testimony * * * is to negative or neutralize the testimony to which it is directed.
State v. Johnson 184 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1971
The use of this impeachment evidence is clearly consistent with the requirements stated in State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , , as well as State v. Dahlgren, 259 Minn. 307 , 107 N. W. (2d) 299 .
Hillesheim v. Stippel 166 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 1969
State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; State v. Mlynczak, 268 Minn. 417 , 130 N. W. (2d) 53 .
State v. Slapnicher 149 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1967
3 Kvanli v. Village of Watson, 272 Minn. 481, 486 , 139 N. W. (2d) 275, 279 ; State v. Mlynczak, 268 Minn. 417, 419 , 130 N. W. (2d) 53, 54 ; State v. Dahlgren, 259 Minn. 307, 309 , 107 N. W. (2d) 299, 301 ; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358, 361 , .
Kvanli v. Village of Watson 139 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1965
7 See, Erickson v. Paulson, 251 Minn. 183 , 87 N. W. (2d) 585 ; Johnson v. Farrell, 210 Minn. 351 , ; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; Klingman v. Loew’s Incorporated, supra; McCormick, Evidence, § 52; 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 18(C).
State v. Bailey 132 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1965
See, United States v. Graham (2 Cir.) 102 F. (2d) 436, certiorari denied, 307 U. S. 643 , 59 S. Ct. 1041 , 83 L. ed. 1524; Ellis v. United States (8 Cir.) 138 F. (2d) 612; Weaver v. United States (9 Cir.) 216 F. (2d) 23; Stevens v. United States (9 Cir.) 256 F. (2d) 619; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104 , 122 N. W. (2d) 769 .
State v. Schwartz 122 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1963
State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. McClain, 208 Minn. 91 , ; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , .
State v. Dahlgren 107 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1961
The rules pertaining to such impeachment are adequately .stated in State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , , and need not be repeated here.
State v. Guy 105 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1960
6 State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
Price v. Grieger, 244 Minn. 466 , 70 N. W. (2d) 421 ; State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; Witort v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Distinguished Erickson v. Paulson 87 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1957
The case is distinguishable from State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , , and Klingman v. Loew’s Inc. 209 Minn. 449 , , where testimony relative to declarations was received in evidence for impeachment purposes over strenuous objection by opposing counsel and where it was held that an instruction such as that just described should therefore have been given, o
Skinner v. Neubauer 74 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1956
State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; Lindquist v. Dickson, supra.
Strand v. Village of Watson 72 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1955
7 Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434 , , 21 L. R. A. 418; State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , ; Fjellman v. Weller, 213 Minn. 457 , 7 N. W. (2d) 521 ; Witort v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
307 ; State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , 285 N.W.
Ackerman v. Motor Sales & Service Co. 14 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1944
State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , .
Klingman v. Loew's Incorporated 296 N.W. 528 Minn. 1941
In State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358, 361 , , reversal was ordered because this court deemed the testimony thereby elicited “not enough to qualify the previous contradictory assertion as substantive evidence.” (Italics supplied.)
State v. McClain 292 N.W. 753 Minn. 1940
The ruling was within the discretion of the trial judge under State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , .
State v. Lemke 290 N.W. 307 Minn. 1940
In setting out these principles we are merely restating what has been previously expressed by this court in State v. Saporen, 205 Minn. 358 , , and by the authorities therein cited.