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. Johnson, 239 N.W.2d 239.

45 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The chain-of-custody rule “require[s] the prosecution to account for the whereabouts of physical evidence connected with a crime from the time of its seizure to its offer at trial.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    The chain-of-custody rule requires “the prosecution to account for the whereabouts of physical evidence connected with a crime from the time of its seizure to its offer at trial.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    The chain-of-custody rule requires “the prosecution to account for the whereabouts of physical evidence connected with a crime from the time of its seizure to its offer at trial.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    The chain-of-custody rule “requires testimony of continuous possession by each individual having possession, together with testimony by each that the object remained in substantially the same condition during its presence in his [or her] possession.” Id.; (explaining “the ‘chain of custody’ rule” requires the state “to account for the whereabouts of physical evidence connected with a crime from the time of seizure to its offer at trial”).
  • State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
    " State v. Hager , , 44 (Minn. 1982) (quoting State v. Johnson , 307 Minn. 501 , , 242 (1976) ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    5 [appellant’s] objection and a dmit Exhibit 8 into evidence.” See State v. Johnson , (“Admissibility should not depend on the prosecution [negating] all possibility of tampering or substitution, but rather only that it is reasonably probable that tampering or substitution did not occur.”).2 The UPO , who purchased the methamphetamine , testified that he (1) tested it, (2) weig
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    The chain-of-custody rule requires “the prosecution to account for the whereabouts of physical evidence connected with a crime from the time of its seizure to its offer at trial.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (“There can be no rigid formulation of what showing is necessary in order for a particular item of evidence to be admissible.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    The determination of whether the chain of custody is satisfied “must be left to the sound discretion of the [district court] judge.” State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    6 The chain-of-custody rule requires “the prosecution to account for the whereabouts of physical evidence connected with a crime from the time of its seizure to its offer at trial.” State v. Johnson , 307 Minn. 501, 504
  • State of Minnesota v. Ricky Donell Holifield Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Ricky Donell Holifield Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    The “chain of custody” rule requires “the prosecution to account for the whereabouts of physical evidence connected with a crime from the time of its seizure to 10 its offer at trial.” State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504
  • State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
    See State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 505, (noting that admissibility of evidence requiring chain-of-custody authentication is not contingent upon negating “all possibility of tampering or substitution, but rather only that it is reasonably probable that tampering or substitution did not occur”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    While “[t]here can be no rigid formulation of what showing is necessary in order for a particular item to be admissible,” an item is authenticated when the state shows that “(1) the evidence offered is the same as that seized, and (2) it is in substantially the same condition.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    It insures that the items seized have not been exchanged for others more incriminating, and that they have not been contaminated or altered.” State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504
  • State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “[A]dmissibility must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge,” State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504, and the district court may make a “definitive ruling” to admit or exclude evidence “either at or before trial,” Minn. 2 During the hearing, Farah’s counsel submitted into evidence two police policy manuals.
  • State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504
  • Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
  • Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
    State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504-05
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
    State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504-05 , (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); (reaffirming Johnson after the adoption of Minn. R. Evid.
  • State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
    -16 (Minn.1988) (citing State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 509 , ).
  • State v. Bellikka 490 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bellikka 490 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504
  • Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Greene 463 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Greene 463 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    at 44 (quoting State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504 , ).
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
    State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 509
  • McDonald v. State 351 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • McDonald v. State 351 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501
  • State v. Hager 325 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Hager 325 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1982
    In State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504 , we discussed the “chain of custody” rule, stating that “[tjhere can be no rigid formulation of what showing is necessary in order for a particular item of evidence to be admissible” and that admissibility generally “must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” We added t
  • State v. Harris 255 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Harris 255 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Armstrong 249 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Armstrong 249 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
    See, State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501
  • State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Dickson 244 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1976
    3 This court reaffirmed the Caron standard in State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501 , and State v. Fields, 306 Minn. 521