DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hill, 253 N.W.2d 378.

58 citing documents.

  • Cameron Oneal Clark, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    (“Courts have traditionally looked with disfavor on motions for a new trial founded on alleged recantations .
  • Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
  • Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
    looked with disfavor on motions for a new trial founded on alleged recantations unless there are extraordinary and unusual circumstances.” State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 523
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
    “Courts have * * ⅜ looked with disfavor on motions for a new trial founded on alleged recantations unless there are extraordinary and unusual circumstances.” State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 523
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
    We generally look “with disfavor on motions for a new trial founded on alleged recantations * * State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 523
  • Opsahl v. State 710 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • Opsahl v. State 710 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
    Traditionally, “[c]ourts have * * * looked with disfavor on motions for a new trial founded on alleged recantations unless there are extraordinary and unusual circumstances.” State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 523
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
    State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 523
  • State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    2248 , 90 L.Ed.2d 694 (1986); State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 525 , State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401, 407 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1, 12-13 , pet.
  • Daniels v. State 447 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1989
  • Daniels v. State 447 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1989
    State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 523
  • State v. Davis 422 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Davis 422 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Marriage of Kerkhoff v. Kerkhoff 400 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514
  • Marriage of Kerkhoff v. Kerkhoff 400 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514 , the court stated: Courts have traditionally looked with disfavor on motions for a new trial founded on alleged recantations unless there are extraordinary and unusual circumstances.
  • State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Furthermore, “[cjourts have traditionally looked with disfavor on motions for a new trial founded on alleged recantations unless there are extraordinary and unusual circumstances.” State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 523 , , 585 n. 7 (1982) (“Courts tend to view recanted testimony with suspicion because of the possibility that it was obtained through coercion”).
  • State v. Litzau 377 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Litzau 377 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The State argues that State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401 , and State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514 , support its contention that the supreme court has explicitly recognized stipulation as a separate basis for admitting polygraph evidence.
  • State v. Backus 358 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Backus 358 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514
  • State v. Jacobson 326 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Jacobson 326 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1982
    See also State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514 , State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51
  • State v. Saldana 324 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Saldana 324 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1982
    Compare other cases in which expert testimony is excluded as scientifically inaccurate and unreliable, (hypnotically induced testimony); (polygraph test results).
  • State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Caldwell 322 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1982
    See, e.g., State v. Naeole, 62 Hawaii 568 , 617 P.2d 820 (1980); State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514 , Whelan v. State, 298 Minn. 545
  • Martin v. State 295 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 1980
  • Martin v. State 295 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 1980
    State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51 , State v. Klotter, 274 Minn. 58
  • State v. MacK 292 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1980
  • State v. MacK 292 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1980
    7 State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 220-21 , -65 (1952); State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401 , State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514
  • State v. Bird 292 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Bird 292 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1980
    Defendant’s final contention, that the postconviction court abused its discretion in refusing to grant defendant a new trial on the basis of complainant’s alleged recantation of her trial testimony, is answered by reference to our opinion in State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514
  • State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
  • Burnell v. State 287 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1979
  • Burnell v. State 287 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Colsch 284 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Colsch 284 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1979
    State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514
  • State v. Cox 278 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Cox 278 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Lee 266 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Lee 266 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1978
    The issue relating to the admissibility of polygraph test results is answered by our recent decision in State v. Hill, Minn., where we refused to reconsider our longstanding rule against the admissibility of such evidence.