Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hogan, 212 N.W.2d 664.

99 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Fratzke, d at 407; see Fairbanks, d at 303 (concluding no actual prejudice whe n most of the 119 articles defendant submitted with his motion were published 11 months or more before trial); State v. Swain , (concluding that six months between the one week of pretrial publicity and trial mitigated prejudice); (concluding that a three-month gap between pretrial publicity and trial mitigated prejudice); ( suggesting that ongoing press coverage “[o]ver a period of several months” where “hardly a day
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
Warren, d at 448 ; Fratzke, d at 407 ; State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
that the jury would not render an unprejudiced or unbiased verdict.” State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
See State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 434-35 , (noting that evidence of a scheme or plan was “inextricably bound together” with evidence of the immediate episode of the crime charged).
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
An abuse of discretion occurs where- the evidence is such that “a real possibility exists that a jury will not render an unprejudiced or unbiased verdict.” (quoting State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437 , ).
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
An abuse of discretion occurs when the evidence is such that “a real possibility exists that a jury will not render an unprejudiced or unbiased verdict.” (quoting State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437 , ).
In Re Welfare of D.M.D. 607 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2000
In Re Welfare of D.M.D. 607 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2000
Because the former certification statute did not define what constitutes a threat to public safety, this court in State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , set forth some criteria to guide courts’ considerations: In determining if the public safety would be threatened, among the relevant factors to be considered are: (1) The seriousness of the offense in terms of community protection; (2) the circumstances surrounding the offense; (3) whether the
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
See, e.g., Fratzke, d at 407 (7-month interval); (6-month interval); State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437 , (3-month interval).
State v. Jones 566 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1997
State v. Jones 566 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1997
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
Ouk, d at 185 ; State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
d at 184 ; State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440
In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
The state cites State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 441 , in which the supreme court noted that the juvenile “was not a suspect and in fact continued to declare himself a victim” when he made his initial statement to police at the hospital.
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
and State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , support admission of the pornographic items.
State v. Ouk 516 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1994
State v. Ouk 516 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1994
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440 , , 671 *185 (1973).
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 433 , -68 (1973).
State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 433 , (approving, in attempted murder trial, admission of books on “urban guerilla warfare” seized from defendant); (noting link between contents of violent pornographic books offered as state’s exhibits and circumstances of charged crim
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
(seven-month interval lessened potential for juror prejudice due to adverse publicity); (lapse of six months decreased likelihood of pretrial prejudice); State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437 , (three-month lapse decreased potential for pretrial prejudice due to media coverage).
Matter of the Welfare of R.D.W. 407 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Matter of the Welfare of R.D.W. 407 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
32.05; see also State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , -70 (1973).
In Re the Welfare of D.M. 373 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of D.M. 373 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , -70 (1973).
Stefano v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stefano v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440
State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
See State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437 , (3-month interval); (6-month interval).
State v. Ward 349 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ward 349 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The standard of review is as follows: “Before it can be concluded that the trial court has abused this discretion, it *296 must be shown that a real possibility exists that the jury will not render an unprejudiced or unbiased verdict.” State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437
Matter of Welfare of Haaland 346 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Welfare of Haaland 346 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430