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. Koehler, 312 N.W.2d 108.

29 citing documents.

  • State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
    When the evidence is destroyed as a result of intentional conduct, we consider whether there is any evidence that the State destroyed or released the evidence “ ‘to avoid discovery of evidence beneficial to the defense.’ ” Bailey, d at 393 ().
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
    we refused to overturn a conviction on grounds that physical evidence was “inadvertently lost before appellant had an opportunity to examine” it, concluding that (1) “there is no suggestion that the State intentionally lost the [evidence] to avoid discovery of evidence beneficial to the defense” and
  • Wall v. Fair View Hospital & Healthcare Services 568 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Wall v. Fair View Hospital & Healthcare Services 568 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Patton v. Newmar Corp. 520 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Patton v. Newmar Corp. 520 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    etermining whether to dismiss a case due to the prosecution’s loss or destruction of evidence, including the possible exculpatory value of the lost or destroyed evidence, Bielejeski, d at 667 , the strength of the State’s case even if the evidence was available, and whether or not the destruction was intentional, -10 (Minn.1981).
  • Sanders v. State 400 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Sanders v. State 400 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    -14 (Minn.1984); -31 (Minn.1982)
  • 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 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. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • Rodriguez v. State 345 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Rodriguez v. State 345 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    “[Ojnly matters disclosed under hypnosis which have not been previously and unequivocally disclosed in preh-ypnotic statements are barred from being testified to at a criminal trial.” -31 (Minn.1982)
  • In re the Welfare of J.R.D. 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Matter of JRD 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Matter of JRD 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    contends that the use of hypnosis in criminal proceedings in Minnesota is extremely limited because of the impact of three Minnesota cases:
  • In re the Welfare of J.R.D. 342 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    contends that the use of hypnosis in criminal proceedings in Minnesota is extremely limited because of the impact of three Minnesota cases:
  • State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Blanchard 315 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Blanchard 315 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1982
    we adhered to Mack and reversed a first-degree murder conviction because of the erroneous admission of incriminating hypnotically influenced testimony.