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. Otten, 195 N.W.2d 590.

29 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    A victim’s identification of her assailant’s voice is “direct evidence sufficient to present a fact question for the [fact-finder].” State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494, Sauber v. Northland Ins.
  • 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
  • State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    A victim’s identification of her assailant’s voice is “direct evidence sufficient to present a fact question for the jury.” State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494 , see Sauber v. Northland Ins.
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Often, 292 Minn. 493, 494
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494
  • State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
    State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494
  • State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    See State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494 , pet.
  • State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494 , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Franson 403 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Franson 403 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 495
  • Harris v. State 399 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Harris v. State 399 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493, 494 , (in addition to other evidence, the victim’s identification of her assailant’s voice “was direct evidence sufficient to present a fact question for the jury to determine”).
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493
  • State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
    3 See, also, State v. Saunders, 293 Minn. 372 , State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493
  • State v. Gengler 200 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Gengler 200 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1972
    This prosecution arises out of the events described in State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493
  • State v. Saunders 196 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Saunders 196 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1972
    State v. Otten, 292 Minn. 493