Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96.

99 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-02 (Minn. 1981); Hallmark, d at 293.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
102 (Minn. 1981) (noting that two-week gap between event and statement about it diminished trustworthiness).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“The necessity requirement is met here as a result of [the witness’s] unavailability due to his refusal to testify.”); (“The requirement of necessity is fulfilled by a showing that the declarant is unavailable.”), overruled on other grounds by Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61; (same); (requiring the prosecution t
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
See State v. Hansen , , 102 (Minn. 1981) (noting that a period of two weeks between an event and a statement about the event diminished trustworthiness), abrogation on other grounds recognized in State v. Bobadilla , , 248 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Hansen , , 105 (Minn. 1981) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not include "any direct or indirect evidence indicating that defendant's conduct had caused" the witness's refusal to testify), abrogation recognized by State v. Bobadilla , , 248 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
(-93 (Minn.1997)); -02 (Minn.1981).
State v. Bobadilla 709 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2006
State v. Bobadilla 709 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2006
2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
thfulness and honesty, relationship with defendant and government, motivation to testify, personal knowledge, and corroborating evidence support trustworthiness of statement); (holding that statements made to several people, along with other indicia of reliability or with some detail as to the incident, indicate some reliability); (holding statements made during police questioning or in unsupervised setting of *470 an official interrogation, “some time after the incident,” not subject to cross e
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
Aubid, d at 788 ; see Byers, d at 494 (emphasizing facts that statement was cross-examined and given under oath were important indicia of reliability); (“Statements which are made under oath and subject to cross-examination may be sufficiently reliable to protect the values associated with the confrontation clause.”).
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Aubid 578 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Byers 570 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
State v. Byers 570 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
State v. Byers 554 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Byers 554 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
804(b)(5); ,101 n. 3 (Minn.1981) (listing the six main conditions for admission under Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
The trial court sustained defendant’s objection to the admission of a taperecording and transcript of a statement Arredondo gave in Texas after his arrest, admission of the evidence would violate defendant’s right to confront his accusers.
State v. Washington 521 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1994
State v. Washington 521 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1994
(citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Patrick 512 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Patrick 512 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); (Minnesota adopts federal test).
State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Schilling 474 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Schilling 474 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
As to trustworthiness, appellant alleges the statements are “unsworn, ex parte statements made during police questioning” such as were declared “inherently untrustworthy” (citing United States v. Sarmiento Perez, 633 F.2d 1092, 1102-03 (5th Cir.1981)).
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
State v. Hines 458 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hines 458 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(circumstances under which the statement is made must be “so far contrary to the [declarant’s] interest that a reasonable person in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.”) Because Bogenreif’s statement would have been inadmissible hearsay, defense counsel had
State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990