Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96.
- State v. Watts 452 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Watts
452 N.W.2d 728
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
804(a)(2); (witness unavailable when refused to testify).
- State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
State v. Larson
447 N.W.2d 593
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“Evidence admitted in violation of the confrontation clause is not harmless error unless the evidence in other respects is overwhelming.”
- State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
- State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
- State v. Conklin 444 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1989
- Goswitz v. Fiedler 435 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Goswitz v. Fiedler
435 N.W.2d 857
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(enumerating criteria for admitting statement under Minn.R.Evid.
- State v. Carlin 423 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Carlin 423 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Willette 421 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
State v. Willette
421 N.W.2d 342
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(statements of estranged wife unreliable when she contacted police in response to reward offered for information); United States v. Sarmiento-Perez, 633 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir.1981) (custodial confession of a separately tried co-defendant unreliable).
- State v. Thompson 413 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Thompson
413 N.W.2d 889
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(hearsay statements primarily exculpatory are suspect absent “solidly inculpating statements”).
- State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Jenkins
411 N.W.2d 504
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
- State v. Durante 406 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Durante
406 N.W.2d 80
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
* * * This is particularly significant when the statement inculpates a defendant.”
- In Re the Welfare of L.Z. 396 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1986
-
In Re the Welfare of L.Z.
396 N.W.2d 214
Minn. 1986
2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
- State v. Iverson 396 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Iverson 396 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Frandsen 391 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Frandsen
391 N.W.2d 59
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
- State v. Page 386 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Page
386 N.W.2d 330
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We are mindful as well that the supreme court has recognized a traditional view that ex parte statements made during police questioning are “inherently untrustworthy.”
- State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
-
State v. Daniels
380 N.W.2d 777
Minn. 1986
2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
- State v. Munson 380 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Munson 380 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Peirce 364 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
-
State v. Peirce
364 N.W.2d 801
Minn. 1985
2531, 2538-2539 , 65 *807 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
- State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Criticized
State v. Richardson
363 N.W.2d 793
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the Minnesota Supreme Court criticized the admission of an unsigned statement made by an unavailable declar-ant after he had been promised a reduced charge in return for his cooperation.
- State v. Ortlepp 363 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1985
- State v. Ortlepp 363 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1985
- State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
-
State v. Daniels
361 N.W.2d 819
Minn. 1985
101 n. 3 (Minn.1981); Minn.R.Evid.
- State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Tiessen
354 N.W.2d 473
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
- State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
- State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
- Fisher v. State 327 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1982
- Fisher v. State 327 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1982
- State v. Blue 327 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1982
- State v. Blue 327 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1982