Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bishop, 183 N.W.2d 536.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Burch, d at 553; (directing that juries should be instructed on the Burch factors where identification is at issue).
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
[the] reasonableness or unreasonableness of their testimony, ,,, and any other factor that bear on believability and weight”); see also State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 195 , -41 (1971) (explaining that the court’s general instructions, which referenced weight and credibility of witness testimony, adequately covered the substance of the identification instruction that was requested).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The care with which a jury should be instructed with reference to this type of testimony must depend upon the particular circumstances in each case.” State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 195, –41 (1971).
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 195
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The most favorable case cited in his brief is State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 195, (“It is generally held that it is improper for the court to single out particular witnesses and charge as to their credibility.”).
State v. Peterson 533 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Peterson 533 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 194 , (stating that credibility may be tested through cross-examination “which could effectively disclose defects or infirmities” in witness identification testimony); (reliability of eyewitness identification is for the jury to eval
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 194 , *829
State v. Svoboda 331 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1983
State v. Svoboda 331 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1983
error for the trial court to refuse to specifically instruct the jury that identification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to refuse to give a cautionary instruction specifying the factors to be used in evaluating eyewitness identification testimony.” State v. Christian, 309 Minn. 393 , State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , and State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
State v. Rono 324 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
State v. Rono 324 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
State v. Christian, 309 Minn. 393 , State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , and State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
See, e. g., State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26.03, subd.
State v. Maloney 204 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1973
State v. Maloney 204 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1973
Defendant contends that the presence of the two girls was required at the Rasmussen hearing, that since the identification evidence “depended upon the states of mind, and the effect of the police procedures upon the states of mind, of the eyewitnesses, the burden could be met only with their testimony.” However, this court in State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , in discussing identification testimony in the Rasmussen context, said that such testimony was mainly evidentiary and that a Rasmussen heari
State v. Bell 199 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1972
State v. Bell 199 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1972
Nevertheless, we think the trial court was within the discretion permitted in State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , when it declined to hear matters concerning the lineup at defendant’s Rasmussen hearing.
State v. Hayes 195 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
State v. Hayes 195 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
See, also, Foster v. California, 394 U. S. 440 , 89 S. Ct. 1127 , 22 L. ed. 2d 402 (1969); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 , 87 S. Ct. 1967 , 18 L. ed. 2d 1199 (1967); State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188