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. Durfee, 322 N.W.2d 778.

48 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See State v. Durfee , -86 (Minn. 1982) (despite appellant’s admission that child’s injuries constituted great bodily harm, photos remained admissible becau se the real issue was whether defendant intentionally caused that harm); (despite appella nt’s offer to stipulate, dist
  • State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    9 “Photographs are generally admissible whe[n] they accurately portray anything which is competent for a witness to describe orally, and [when] they are relevant to some material issue.”
  • State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    In addition, “[a] party who learns of [juror misconduct] during trial may not keep silent and then attempt to take advantage of it in the event of an adverse verdict.” see also Zimmerman v. Witte Transp.
  • State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “Photographs are generally admissible where they accurately portray anything which is competent for a witness to describe orally, and [where] they are relevant to some material issue.”
  • State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    See, -86 (Minn.1982) (deciding that the district court did not err by allowing proof of the victim’s injuries, including photographs regardless of defendant’s offer to stipulate); (holding that the state was not required to accept a stipulation on the cause of an i
  • State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Greenfield 622 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    See, -86 (Minn.1982) (defense could not stipulate *833 that victim suffered great bodily harm so that photographs would not be admitted into evidence); (state not required to accept stipulation as to cause of death of infant so as to prevent photographs from being
  • State v. Greenfield 622 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (affirming district court’s decision to admit photographs, despite defendant’s offer to stipulate that victim suffered great bodily harm, because *409 photographs were relevant on issue of whether defendant intentionally caused harm).
  • State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Barsness 473 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Barsness 473 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    -86 (Minn.1982); (videotape of actual crime), pet.
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
    -58 (Minn.1988); -86 (Minn.1982).
  • State v. Borden 455 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Borden 455 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    -86 (Minn.1982); State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 47
  • State v. Morrison 437 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Morrison 437 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    -86 (Minn.1982) (citing State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , ).
  • State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a
  • State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (battered child syndrome evidence in prosecution for first degree assault, requiring intent to inflict bodily harm).
  • State v. Hatton 396 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hatton 396 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “Photographs are generally admissible where they accurately portray anything which is competent for a witness to describe orally, and [where] they are relevant to some material issue.”
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • 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. Henderson 355 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Henderson 355 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Stephanie 354 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Stephanie 354 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1984
    Second, the court was justified in relying on the rule that “A party who learns of a misconduct of a juror during trial may not keep silent and then attempt to take advantage of it in the event of an adverse verdict.”
  • State v. Danielski 350 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Danielski 350 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The state also argues that since expert testimony on the “battered child syndrome” is admissible,- the offered evidence here should be likewise admissible.