DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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.