DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gluff, 172 N.W.2d 63.

92 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    “The 6 trustworthiness of an identification must necessarily be judged by the opportunity the witness has had for a deliberate and accurate observation of the accused while in his [or her] presence.” State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 151
  • State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 150-51 , -65 (1969); State v. Walters, 262 Minn. 26, 28-29 , -71 (1962); review denied (Minn. Sept.
  • State v. Foreman 680 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Foreman 680 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
    State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 150-51
  • State v. Taylor 427 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Taylor 427 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 150-61
  • State v. Myers 413 N.W.2d 122 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Myers 413 N.W.2d 122 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 150
  • State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Cf. State v. Gluff 285 Minn. 148 , (conviction reversed where the eyewitness’ initial description was entirely different from the appearance of defendant, whom the witness identified from a lineup).
  • State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “The identification need not be positive and certain to support a conviction.” State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 150-51
  • State v. Hicks 380 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hicks 380 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The general rule in Minnesota is that a witness must have an opportunity for accurate observation; State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 151 , and adequate circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant with the crime should be present.
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
    Ellingson , 283 Minn, at 210, d at 56 ; Stale v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148
  • Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See, e.g., Hamilton v. State, 293 Minn. 257, 262 , -75 (1972); State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 150 , State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
  • State v. Arndt 260 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Arndt 260 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1977
    The state in its brief concedes that error was committed at trial when the prosecutor inadvertently elicited the evidence which indirectly revealed defendant’s arrest record [State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148 , ] and when he cross-examined defendant about his failure to give his alibi to police when he was arrested [Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • County of Hennepin v. Honeywell, Inc. 210 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1973
  • County of Hennepin v. Honeywell, Inc. 210 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1973
    We there said ( 285 Minn. 148 , ): “* * * The foremost concept in the word [inventory] as it is used in the Tax Reform and Relief Act * * * is an availability for sale in the ordinary course of business.
  • State v. Bell 199 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Bell 199 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1972
    Such opportunity, without evidence that the observation was of doubtful trustworthiness, as was the case in State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148 , adequately supports the trial court’s decision to exclude identification matters from the Rasmussen hearing.
  • Hamilton v. State 198 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
  • Hamilton v. State 198 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
    The factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony to which defendant refers — time for observation, circumstances under which the observation was made, etc. — go to the weight to be accorded the testimony, not its admissibility.” See, also, State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148
  • State v. Hayes 195 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hayes 195 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
    Defendant further calls attention to State v. Olson, 279 Minn. 166 , and State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148 , where this court reversed judgments of conviction, even though no objection was made to improper testimony regarding a prior offense in Olson or to an allegedly prejudicial lineup in Gluff.
  • State v. Burgess 185 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Burgess 185 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1971
    This, defendant asserts, does not meet the test we required in State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148 , 172 N. W. (2d) 63 .
  • State v. Hellem 185 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Hellem 185 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1971
    Citing State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148 , 172 N. W. (2d) 63 , defendant contends that his identification by both complainants fails to meet the standard established by this court to determine the weight which a jury is entitled to give an identification.
  • State v. Stark 179 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Kohuth 176 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Kohuth 176 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1970
    State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148 , 172 N. W. (2d) 63 .
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
    State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148 , 172 N. W. (2d) 63 ; State v. Madison, 281 Minn. 170 , 160 N. W. (2d) 680 .