Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Blanchard, 315 N.W.2d 427.

60 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Galgalo Jarso Hache Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
But a homicide victim’s state of mind regarding the defendant may become relevant “where the defendant raises the defense of accident, suicide, or self-defense.” (); (concluding that statements that homicide victim was going to take her girls and leave was relevant to rebut defendant’s claim that the victim, his wife, murdered his daughter and step-daughter).
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
we held that evidence of a victim’s fear of a perpetrator is admissible only when all three of the following conditions are met: a. The victim’s state of mind must be a relevant issue.
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 402
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
A homicide victim’s state of mind regarding the defendant “is generally relevant only where the defendant raises the defense of accident, suicide, or self-defense.”
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
A murder victim’s fear of a defendant is only admissible where the victim’s state of mind is relevant, for instance, “where the defendant raises the defense of accident, suicide or self-defense.” see also Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
the court held that hearsay statements concerning a murder victim’s fear of a defendant are admissible only when three conditions exist.
State v. Rainer 502 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
State v. Rainer 502 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
we stated that hearsay statements about the victim’s state of mind could be admitted when the defendant raises the defenses of accident, suicide, or self-defense.
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. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
where hearsay statements of a homicide victim regarding fear of a defendant were admitted, but appellant does not explain how these cases are analogous to the hearsay in question.
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(victim’s state of mind must be relevant, court must weigh probative value against risk of unfair prejudice, and limiting instruction must be given).
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Byman 410 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Byman 410 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(erroneous admission of evidence not reversible error unless highly prejudicial).
State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[ejvidence pertaining to the relationship between a defendant and the homicide victim is ordinarily admissible in criminal prosecutions, regardless of its reference to another crime.
State v. Johnsen 364 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Johnsen 364 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Williams 361 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Williams 361 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
we adopted the rule that hearsay evidence concerning a homicide victim’s fear of a defendant is admissible only when three conditions are satisfied: 1.