Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Senske, 190 N.W.2d 658.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
E.g., State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494, (“ ‘The factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony, such as time for observation and circumstances under which the observation was made, go to the weight to be accorded the testimony, not to its admissibility.’ ” (quoting State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230, )); accord State v. Farmer, 179 Minn. 516, 518, 229 N.W.
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 231
State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 231 , (objection should be made when evidence is presented).
State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
We, however, have stated: “Identification testimony need not be positive and certain; it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.” State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230 , (citation omitted).
In Re Welfare of A.B.L. 358 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Welfare of A.B.L. 358 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230
State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
See State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230
State v. Jones 271 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1978
State v. Jones 271 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1978
*537 In its brief on appeal the state cites State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228 , as authority for the proposition that by not taking the stand defendant waived his right to raise this issue on appeal.
State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228 , State v. Poelaert, 200 Minn. 30
State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
2 As we noted in State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230 , : “Identification testimony need not be positive and certain; it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.
State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228 , State v. Stark, 288 Minn. 286 , State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
State v. Saunders 196 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1972
State v. Saunders 196 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1972
State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230
State v. Otten 195 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
State v. Otten 195 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
Trimble v. Hedman, 291 Minn. 442 , as well as State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230 , where we said: “Identification testimony need not be positive and certain; it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
7 See, Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 100 , where we stated that the “primary consideration is prejudice.” 8 “Identification testimony need not be positive and certain; it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.” State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228, 230