Cited by

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

99 citing documents.

In re the Welfare of J.R.D. 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of JRD 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of JRD 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , -70 (1973).
In re the Welfare of J.R.D. 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , -70 (1973).
State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
“Before it can be concluded that the trial court has abused this discretion, it 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
Welfare of S. R. J. v. State 293 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1980
Welfare of S. R. J. v. State 293 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1980
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430
State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
Stated another way, the evidence must be such that “a real possibility exists that a jury will not render an unprejudiced or unbiased verdict.” State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 437
In Re the Welfare of T. D. S. 289 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1980
In Re the Welfare of T. D. S. 289 N.W.2d 137 Minn. 1980
In State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , -70 (1973), this court enumerated some of the factors relevant to public safety: (1) The seriousness of the offense in terms of community protection; (2) the circumstances surrounding the offense; (3) whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner
In Re the Welfare of K. P. H. 289 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1980
In Re the Welfare of K. P. H. 289 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1980
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430
State v. Orscanin 283 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1979
State v. Orscanin 283 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430
Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430
Matter of Welfare of Dahl 278 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1979
Matter of Welfare of Dahl 278 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1979
State v. Duncan, Minn., State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430
In Re the Welfare of S. W. T. 277 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1979
In Re the Welfare of S. W. T. 277 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1979
The child’s age, maturity, intelligence, education, experience, and ability to comprehend are all factors to be considered in addition to the presence and competence of his parents during waiver.” State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440
State v. Linder 268 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1978
State v. Linder 268 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1978
See, also, State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , (same totality-of-circumstances approach applies in determining validity of waiver of Miranda rights by juvenile).
State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
See, State v. Ellis, 271 Minn. 345 , (7 month interval); State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , (3 month interval).
In Re Welfare of W. J. R. 264 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1978
In Re Welfare of W. J. R. 264 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1978
In State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , we enumerated the following six factors as relevant to the determination of whether the public safety would be served: “ * * * (1) The seriousness of the offense in terms of community protection: (2) the circumstances surrounding the offense; (3) whether the offense was committed in
In Re the Welfare of J. B. M. 263 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1978
In Re the Welfare of J. B. M. 263 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1978
The court then concluded that the juvenile was a threat to public safety, applying the guidelines therefor contained in State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , and State v. Duncan, supra.
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
The other case is State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430
State v. Duncan 250 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1977
State v. Duncan 250 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1977
State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438
In Re Welfare of IQS 244 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1976
State v. Parker 244 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1976
State v. Parker 244 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1976
See, State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , for a discussion of suggested factors to be considered in determining whether the public safety may be threatened should the reference motion be denied.
In Re Welfare of IQS 244 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1976
[6] See, State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , for a discussion of suggested factors to be considered in determining whether the public safety may be threatened should the reference motion be denied.
State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
Juvenile Court Eule 1-5 (2, 3); State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440
State v. Thomas 232 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1975
State v. Thomas 232 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1975
However, as to the merits of this *515 issue, we held in State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , filed the same day as Loyd, that parental presence is only one of many factors to consider in determining whether a juvenile has voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to silence and that other factors involved in the totality of relevant circumstances include the juvenile’s age, mat
State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
Welfare of J. E. C. v. State 225 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1975
Welfare of J. E. C. v. State 225 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1975
In State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 438 , we said: “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 offense was committed in an aggres
State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
The prosecution cites the following cases in support of its position: State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116 , State *358 v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , and State v. Sweeney, supra.
State v. Loyd 212 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1973
State v. Loyd 212 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1973
1 These related questions are present in our decision of State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430