Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hines, 133 N.W.2d 371.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
about other crimes relevant to those elements.” see also State v. Wood, 211 N.W.
Leland Bertsch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[O]ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” Greenlaw v. United States , 554 U.S. 237, 244, 128 S. Ct. 2559, 2564 (2008) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 40, (“Under the Anglo-American trial system, the parties and their counsel have the primar y responsibility for finding, selecting and presenting evidence.”).
State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 37 , (holding a witness is not allowed to give a conclusionary opinion or impression as to the subjective intent of the accused because a witness could not have information as to another person’s knowledge).
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
Security State Bank of Howard Lake v. Dieltz 408 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Security State Bank of Howard Lake v. Dieltz 408 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
He cites State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 37 , in which it was held error to allow a witness to testify that a defendant charged with robbery “knew what was going on.” The supreme court explained: [I]t is well established that a witness is not permitted to give a conclusory opinion or impression upon such a crucial issue as the su
State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
602; (2) there must be a rational basis for the opinion, State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30 , and (3) the testimony must be helpful to the jury, Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 39
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
8 State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 35-36 , State ex rel.
State v. Ellert 301 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
State v. Ellert 301 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
403 and 701 and State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
In State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 37 , the court ruled that it was error to allow a witness to testify about the defendant’s subjective intent.
State v. Bennett 258 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1977
State v. Bennett 258 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1977
Although a trial judge possesses a wide range of discretion in admitting opinion evidence, “it is well established that a witness is not permitted to give a conclu-sionary opinion or impression upon such a crucial issue as the subjective intention or knowledge of an accused in a case such as this because the witness ‘could not know of his own knowledge what another knew.’ ” State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 37
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
Two well-settled exceptions to this rule are the use of evidence of other crimes to prove the identity of the defendant, e. g., State v. Williams, Minn., and to prove the intent of the defendant, e. g., State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30 , with respect to the alleged offense.
Orwick v. Belshan 231 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1975
Orwick v. Belshan 231 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1975
State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30
State v. Marchand 225 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1975
State v. Marchand 225 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1975
1 This is a procedure authorized in State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30
Jackson v. Wyatt Bros. Cement Co. 203 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1972
Jackson v. Wyatt Bros. Cement Co. 203 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1972
In support of its position that the evidence, even though admitted erroneously, was not prejudicial, defendant cites only State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30
City of Minneapolis v. Bien 176 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1970
City of Minneapolis v. Bien 176 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1970
See, also, State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30 , 133 N. W. (2d) 371 .
State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30 , 133 N. W. (2d) 371 ; State v. Jansen, 207 Minn. 250 , ; State v. Gifis, 195 Minn. 276 , .
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
1 See, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167, 173 ; State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30 , 133 N. W. (2d) 371 ; State v. Drews, 274 Minn. 426, 430 , 144 N. W. (2d) 251, 254 .
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
See, State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30 , 133 N. W. (2d) 371 ; State v. Axilrod, 248 Minn. 204, 208 , 79 N. W. (2d) 677, 681 ; McCormick, Evidence, § 8.
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
1 State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 39 , 133 N. W. (2d) 371, 377 ; State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 201 , 134 N. W. (2d) 115, 125 ; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185, 188 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738, 740 .