Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Huffstutler, 130 N.W.2d 347.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(s tating that “the prosecution is entirely responsible for [the inadmissible evidence’s] presence in the record”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Mahkuk, d at 689 ( (explaining the state is “entirely responsible” for volunteered prejudi cial testimony of its witnesses)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Huffstutler , d 347, 348 (Minn. 1964).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
14 “The fact that the prejudicial information was volunteered by the witness does not render it less harmful to defendant.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Huffstutler , d 347, 348 (Minn. 1964) (“The fact that the prejudicial information was volunteered by the witness does not render it less harmful to [the] defendant.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
( (citing State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 155 -56, )).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–91 (Minn. 1982) (“[W]here the impact of the prejudicial remark may be such as to impart to the minds of the jury substantial prejudicial evidence not properly a part of the case, it is taking too much for granted to say its effect can be removed by an instruction from the court.” (quotation omitted)); State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 156, (“It is true that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the prejudicial statement, but we do not think that that admonition was sufficient to r
State of Minnesota v. Dragos Valentine Bogza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dragos Valentine Bogza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the impact of the prejudicial remark may be such as to impart to the minds of 6 the jury substantial prejudicial evidence not properly a part of the case, it is taking too much for granted to say its effect can be removed by an instruction from the court.” State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 156
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Our conclusion is not altered by State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
See State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 156 , (“The fact that the prejudicial information was volunteered by the witness does not render it less harmful to [the] defendant.
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
806 , 19 L.Ed.2d 853 ; State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , .
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(citing State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , ).
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
However, when “the impact of the prejudicial remark may be such as to impart to the minds of the jury substantial prejudicial evidence not properly a part of the case, it is taking too much for granted to say its effect can be removed by an instruction from the court.” State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 156 , (quoting State v. Reardon, 245 Minn. 509, 513 , ).
State v. Carlson 264 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1978
State v. Carlson 264 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1978
State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153
In Re Welfare of Scalzo 220 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1974
In Re Welfare of Scalzo 220 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1974
State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153
State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
See, State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , 74 N. W. (2d) 297 .” See, also, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , *128 (1965); State v. Huffstutter, 269 Minn. 153 , State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294
State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249 , 141 N. W. (2d) 124 ; State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , 152 N. W. (2d) 445 , certiorari denied, 389 U. S. 1056 , 88 S. Ct. 806 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 853; State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 .
State v. Hall 176 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1970
State v. Hall 176 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1970
The state contends that the plain-sight cases govern: State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , 152 N. W. (2d) 445 , certiorari denied, *430 389 U. S. 1056 , 88 S. Ct. 806 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 853; State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249 , 141 N. W. (2d) 124 ; and State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 .
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
5 State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 ; Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234 , 88 S. Ct. 992 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 1067.
State Ex Rel. Black v. Tahash 158 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1968
State Ex Rel. Black v. Tahash 158 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1968
State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 .
State v. Kotka 152 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1967
State v. Kotka 152 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1967
10 See, State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 ; State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249 , 141 N. W. (2d) 124 .
State v. Bonner 146 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1966
State v. Bonner 146 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1966
State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. *288 (2d) 347; State v. Biehoffer, 269 Minn. 35 , 129 N. W. (2d) 918 ; State v. Boerner, 267 Minn. 539 , 127 N. W. (2d) 555 .
State v. Grunau 141 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1966
State v. Grunau 141 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1966
2 See, State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 .
State v. Clifford 141 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1966
State v. Clifford 141 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1966
9 Leagre, The Fourth Amendment and the Law of Arrest, 54 Journal of *254 Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 393, 406; State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153, 156 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347, 349 ; Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 43 , 83 S. Ct. 1623, 1635 , 10 L. ed. (2d) 726, 744.
State v. Holmes 140 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1966
State v. Holmes 140 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1966
Branchaud v. Hedman, 269 Minn. 375 , 130 N. W. (2d) 628 , certiorari dismissed, 381 U. S. 907 , 85 S. Ct. 1456 , 14 L. ed. (2d) 289; State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 ; State v. Gebhard, 272 Minn. 336 , 137 N. W. (2d) 168 ; 17 Dunnell, Dig.