DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

60 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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.