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. 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