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. Taylor, 258 N.W.2d 615.

39 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    A criminal defendant’s self-serving out-of-court statements are generally inadmissible because they allow the “defendant the opportunity to present [their] version of the facts without ever being subject to cross-examination by the state.” d 615, 622 (Minn. 1977) ; n.9 (Minn. 2020) (concluding that the defendant’s out -of-court statements denying sexual abuse were inadmissible self-serving hearsay).
  • State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    –21 (Minn. 1977) (concluding that evidence of relevant criminal convictions of victim may be admissible to bolster defendant’s self-defense claim).
  • State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
    Moreover, as the district court aptly observed, allowing Robertson to admit the entire interview under the circumstances of this case would have improperly permitted Robertson to testify at trial in “an indirect way.” (discussing concerns with the possibility of allowing the defendant to testify 8 A statement of a party opponent is not hearsay when offered against the party opponent and several other conditions are met.
  • State of Minnesota v. Todd Allen Turchin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Todd Allen Turchin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Page 386 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Page 386 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Whether a statement may be admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule “rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 186 , *662 State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
  • State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
    803(2) 1977 Committee Comment
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Willis 362 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Willis 362 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    There is no showing the acts which led to Boo’s prior arrests were directed at the defendant himself, or even that appellant knew about the specific acts.
  • State v. Berrisford 361 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Berrisford 361 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1985
    Committee Comment, Minn.R.Evid.
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
    Then, we dealt with the issue of the admissibility of evidence of the victim’s past criminal record where the defendant claiming self-defense did not know of it.
  • State v. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Blue 327 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Blue 327 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1982
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
    This court will not overturn the jury’s verdict if, based on the evidence in the record, a jury could reasonably find appellant guilty of the offense, with the evidence viewed most favorably to the verdict
  • State v. Underwood 281 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Underwood 281 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
    As we held in State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , : “ * * * If the jury, acting with due regard for the-presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged, a reviewing court will not disturb its verdict.” See, also, State v. Maloney, 295 Minn. 262