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. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170.

106 citing documents.

  • State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Freeman 531 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1995
    175 n. 4 (Minn.1978) (observing that when chemical analysis of a bloodstain may require the total exhaustion of the available physical evidence, the better practice dictates that the defendant be notified of the proposed testing so that the defendant’s own expert can be present, if the defendant so desires), reh’g d
  • State v. Bloom 516 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Bloom 516 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1994
    The Kim rule is the rule that emerged from three cases:
  • State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Our supreme court, however, has consistently adhered to a position that statistical probability evidence, particularly evidence of the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, should be excluded because of its “potentially exaggerated impact on the trier of fact.”
  • State v. Cornell 491 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Cornell 491 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Probable cause exists if the objective facts indicate that “a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime had been committed.” ().
  • State v. Smith 464 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Smith 464 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
  • Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
    Whether probable cause to arrest exists depends upon “whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence (would) entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ().
  • State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
    where we found it was error to admit expert testimony that there was a 1-800 chance that pubic hairs found on the victim were not those of the defendant and a 1-4,500 chance that head hairs found clutched in the victim’s hand were not those of the defendant.
  • State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Albino 384 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Albino 384 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Kim 374 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kim 374 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Matter of Schultz, Etc. 375 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Matter of Schultz, Etc. 375 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Trimble 371 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Trimble 371 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    -10 (Minn. *925 1981); -75 (Minn.1978).
  • STATE ON BEHALF OF ELG v. Erickson 363 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • STATE ON BEHALF OF ELG v. Erickson 363 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    He cites two Minnesota criminal cases to support his contention:
  • State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Skoog 351 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Skoog 351 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Campion 353 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Campion 353 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Larson 346 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Larson 346 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Minnesota Supreme Court cases upholding Miranda-free at-home interrogations of suspects not in custody include: and State v. Ousley, 312 Minn. 546
  • State v. Boyd 331 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Boyd 331 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1983
    where we held that it was error (although nonprejudicial) to admit expert testimony expressing the results of microscopic hair comparison in terms of statistical probabilities.
  • State v. McGill 324 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1982
  • State v. McGill 324 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Durfee 322 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Durfee 322 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1982
    People v. Collins, 68 Cal.2d 319 , 66 Cal.Rptr.
  • State v. Johnson 314 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 314 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Koehler 312 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Koehler 312 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1981
    we noted that “other courts have drawn a sharp distinction between intentional destruction of evidence by the state and situations in which it is for some reason not possible for the state to retain the physical evidence for trial.” Id.