Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hawkins, 260 N.W.2d 150.

134 citing documents.

State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
Huff v. State 698 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2005
Huff v. State 698 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2005
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
Our requirement that such evidence have an inherent tendency to connect the other party with the crime “avoids the use of bare suspicion and safeguards the third person from indiscriminate use of past differences with the deceased.” ().
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
Johnson, d at 433 ; -59 (Minn.1977) (concluding that the purpose of such evidence is “not to prove the guilt of the [third person], but to generate a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant”).
State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Woodruff v. State 608 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2000
Woodruff v. State 608 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
“several specific acts of abuse and harassment coupled with threats directed toward the victims of the crime that occurred in the months just before the murder and attack * * * show Bultman had the motive to commit the crime and the means to accomplish it (he’d engaged in physical attacks at the house before).” where we recognized that: [p]roper foundation must be laid for the admission of such evidence * ⅜ * to avoid the consideration of matters collateral to the crime.
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
158-60 (Minn.1977) (concluding that sufficient foundation existed where the third person testified that he accompanied the defendant to the scene of the crime); -80 (Minn.1987) (concluding that foundation was insufficient because no evidence was admitted connecting third
State v. Bellaphant 535 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Bellaphant 535 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Lanz-Terry 535 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1995
State v. Lanz-Terry 535 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1995
613; (stating that “[w]here it is the theory of the defense that the crime was committed by a witness for the state, * * * evidence of statements made by the witness out of court conflicting with his testimony is admissible as original evidence on behalf of the defense”).
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
-59 (Minn.1977) (footnotes and citations omitted).
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Hedstrom 426 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hedstrom 426 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Higgins 422 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Higgins 422 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Firearms Volk argues that evidence that Hamilton possibly possessed firearms one year after the murder and that he displayed a gun and made a vague threat to Alexander in 1984 should not have been excluded under rule 608(b)
State v. Williams 418 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1988
State v. Williams 418 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1988
State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
State v. Gustafson 379 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1985
State v. Gustafson 379 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1985