Cited by

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

60 citing documents.

State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
we adhered to our holding in Mack and Koehler that a hypnotically-influenced witness must not be allowed to testify in a criminal proceeding concerning matters he or she “remembers” under hypnosis.
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 v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983
State v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983