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. Higginbotham, 212 N.W.2d 881.

25 citing documents.

  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
    The hearsay exception for statements against interest applies “to statements exculpating the accused only if the declaration against interest is ‘proven trustworthy by independent corroborating evidence that bespeaks reliability.’ ” Hurd, d at 35 (quoting State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 5 , ); see also Dobbins, — N.W.2d at —, 2013 WL 5460940, at *4 (discussing six factors that the courts may consider when determining trustworthiness of statement against penal interest); -61 (Minn.1990) (affi
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
    (Minn.2012) (evaluating the other evidence in the case); -67 (Minn.1986) (assessing the other evidence presented at trial and the declarant’s relationship with the appellant); (examining the overall credibility of the declarant and the relationships of the parties involved in the case); State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 5 , (analyzing the close relationship between the recanting declarant and the appellant and whether the declar-ant had reason to fabricate the statement); see also United State
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
    Consistent with the plain language of the rule, we have interpreted the hearsay exception for statements against interest to apply to statements exculpating the accused only if the declaration against interest is “proven trustworthy by independent corroborating evidence that bespeaks reliability.” State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 5
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 5
  • State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
    In addition, “[b]ecause hearsay statements tending to exculpate the accused must be regarded with suspicion, * * * to be admissible, declarations against penal interest must be proven trustworthy by independent corroborating evidence that bespeaks reliability.” State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 5
  • Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
    * * * Because hearsay statements tending to exculpate the accused must be regarded with suspicion, * * * to be admissible, declarations against penal interest must be proven trustworthy by independent corroborating evidence that bespeaks reliability.” State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 4-5
  • State v. Renier 373 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Renier 373 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1985
    State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1
  • State v. Eppler 362 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Eppler 362 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1985
    1 We followed Ash in State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1
  • State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Minnesota Supreme Court followed Ash in State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1
  • State v. Higginbotham 348 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Higginbotham 348 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1984
    We affirmed defendant’s conviction in State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1
  • State v. Anderson 284 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Anderson 284 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1979
    The leading pre-Rules case in Minnesota on declarations against penal interests is State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1
  • State v. Olsen 258 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Olsen 258 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
    See, also, State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1 , Rule 804(a)(1), (b)(3), Minnesota Rules of Evidence.