Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hoskins, 193 N.W.2d 802.

70 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[U]nless the predominance is obtained by ‘overt actions’ which are coercive in nature and effect and are within the consciousness of all jurors, postverdict impeachment by a juror is not allowed.”).
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
We have long held that “a jury’s deliberations must remain inviolate and its verdict may not be reviewed or set aside on the basis of affidavits or testimony concerning that which transpired in the course of those deliberations.” Colbert, d at 626
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jurors are not permitted to “ disclose any matters which inhere in the verdict, such as their mental processes in connection with it or any other matter resting alone in their minds or consciences.” State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 125, d 802, 812 (1972).
ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE. Minn. 2016
ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE. Minn. 2016
See State v. Scheerle, 285 NW2d 686 (Minn.1979); State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 193 NW2d 802 (1972).
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
See, –31 (Minn. 2000); State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 125–26
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
In State v. Hoskins, we noted that in Gaulke, “the matter of whether a defendant may waive a jury trial was left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” 292 Minn. 111, 118
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
606(b); see also State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 125
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
Jackman, (holding that circumstances surrounding a shooting supported jury’s determination that defendant was not legally insane); DeMars, d at 16 (holding that defendant’s calmness several hours after he killed his mother and attempts to cover up his actions were sufficient to support determination that defendant was not legally insane); State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 137 , (holding that circumstances surrounding shooting and arson were factors for jury to consider in determining whether defe
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 118
State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 126
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 137 , (jury is not bound by expert testimony pertaining to defendant’s sanity).
Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 428 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 428 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, e.g., State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 120-21
State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
(Yetka, J., dissenting); cf. State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111 , (jury could rely on intensive cross-examination and circumstances of crime in deciding to reject the conclusions of psychiatric experts).- Five psychiatric experts testified at trial.
State v. Gustafson 396 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Gustafson 396 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 120-21 , -10 (1972).
State v. Rahier 389 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rahier 389 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111
State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
See also State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 137-38
DeMars v. State 352 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1984
DeMars v. State 352 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1984
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 137-38
State v. Jensen 349 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Jensen 349 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(See State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111 , where the court upheld the admissibility of a second confession where evidence showed that it was secured by a separate investigation.
State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 137-38
State v. Beito 332 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
State v. Beito 332 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
In State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. Ill, we upheld a conviction against a similar challenge even though defendant produced expert testimony of mental illness and the state produced no expert testimony in rebuttal at trial.
Hoskins v. State 328 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1983
Hoskins v. State 328 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1983
Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed in State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111
State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
While defendant acknowledges that he does not have an absolute right to waive jury trial, State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 118 , Gaulke v. State, 289 Minn. 354, 359 , he contends that subsection (a) of the rule requires the trial court to accept the waiver unless strong countervailing reasons exist for refusal.
State v. Wiberg 296 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1980
State v. Warren 295 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1980
State v. Wiberg 296 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1980
See also State v. Raymond, 305 Minn. 160 , State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111 , State ex rel.
State v. Warren 295 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1980
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111
State v. Scheerle 285 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1979
State v. Scheerle 285 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1979
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111
State v. Malley 285 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1979
State v. Malley 285 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1979
State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111