Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ford, 322 N.W.2d 611.
- State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
26, 1987); d 611, 614 (Minn. 1982) (concluding that the defendant failed to show the need for disclosure of the CRI’s identity when “the informant was not a witness to any of the events .
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The state’s explanation finds support in cases in which similar evidence about a law-enforcement officer’s investigation was not deemed hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter assert ed. See, , 552 -53 (Minn. 2010 ); State v. Ford , , 615 (Minn. 1982).
- State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
- State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
State v. Dexter
929 N.W.2d 455
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ford , , 614 (Minn. 1982).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(requiring a prima facie showing); (holding that disclosure of the informant’s id entity was not necessary where the defendant’s theory of why disclosure was necessary dep ended on “mere speculation”); Syrovatka, d at 562 (“[C]ourts should not require in camera disclosure solely on the basis of speculation by the defendan
-
, A18-0348
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
For example, “[w]hen evidence that a tip was received is offered to explain why police have established surveillance of the scene of an expected crime, the evidence is not hearsay.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The defendant has the ultimate burden of establishing the need for the disclosure.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
would have been unjustified in this case because the potential of the evidence being used for an improper purpose outweighed its very limited probative value”); State v. Ford , (indicating that an informant’s tip is not hearsay when it is offered to provide context to an investigation, but that it should nevertheless be excluded under Minn. R. Evid.
- State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“If the defendant fails to meet this burden but is able to establish a basis for inquiry by the court, then the court should hold an in camera hearing to consider affidavits or to interview the informant in person.”
- State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Rambahal
751 N.W.2d 84
Minn. 2008
When a defendant seeks disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, “[t]he defendant has the ultimate burden of establishing the need for the disclosure.”
- State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Skipintheday
717 N.W.2d 423
Minn. 2006
-16 (Minn.1982) (holding that coconspirators commit “crimes against persons” under Minn. Sent.
- State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
- State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
- State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
- State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
- Butler v. Leadens Investigations & Security, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- Butler v. Leadens Investigations & Security, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc.
481 N.W.2d 86
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(relevant consideration in ordering disclosure is whether informant’s testimony would be material).
- State v. Solheim 477 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
State v. Solheim
477 N.W.2d 785
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(defense counsel’s speculation as to informant’s involvement, which was unsupported by defendant’s testimony or other evidence, was insufficient to require disclosure).
- State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
-
State v. Moore
438 N.W.2d 101
Minn. 1989
-562 (Minn.1979); State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6, 13-14
- State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Rothstein 422 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Rothstein 422 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Hardy 354 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1984
- State v. Hardy 354 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1984