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. 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