Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shotley, 233 N.W.2d 755.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Black cites the second, to support that proposition.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Before reaching the merits of Dale’s clai m, we first address the state’s argument that Dale served his full sentence and, therefore, this issue is moot under State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 233 N.W.
State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cf. State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 386 , -58 (1975) (admission of former testimony by witness who moved to Ohio was error, albeit harmless, when state made only “superficial” attempts to locate witness).
State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
Daniels, d at 787 , citing State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 387
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 387
State v. Johnson 396 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnson 396 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
at 33 ; see State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384
State v. Garrett 384 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Garrett 384 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
This case does not involve the authority of the trial court to order a psychological examination to determine a witness’s competency to testify as in State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
Stale v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 387
State v. Holmes 374 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Holmes 374 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Defense counsel said no and expressed his dissatisfaction that a report was not provided about her “emotional stability and mental condition.” “The decision to order an examination for the purpose of determining a child’s competence as a witness is within the discretion of the trial court.” citing State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384 , and State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 86-87
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
(brother of rape victim interrupted the rape and held defendant, with defendant’s pants still down, while victim called police; we held on appeal that trial court properly refused to exclude, as unfairly prejudicial, the photograph police took of defendant, with his pants still down, when the police arrived on the scene); State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384 , (prosecution of defendant for sodomy upon or with a child; we held that trial court properly refused to exclude evidence that police, in searc
State v. Sullivan 360 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Sullivan 360 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, State v. Whelan, 291 Minn. 83, 86-87
State v. Hansen 312 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1981
State v. Hansen 312 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1981
d at 206; State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384
State v. Bird 292 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1980
State v. Bird 292 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1980
See State v. Lasley, 306 Minn. 224 , and State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384
State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
See State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 387
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384
State v. Gruber 264 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1978
State v. Gruber 264 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1978
Finally, this court has demonstrated a strong aversion to the admission of such evidence in State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 387 , where we stated: “ * * * Given * * * the aversion of this court to dilution of the defendant’s right to be confronted by witnesses against him, we could not and would not affirm this conviction were it not for the fact that we consider the testimony as a whole to be overwhelmingly pe
State v. Boykin 252 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1977
State v. Boykin 252 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1977
See, State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384