Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hager, 325 N.W.2d 43.

39 citing documents.

In Re the Custody of: B. G. F.; Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“In the absence of any indication of substitution, alteration, or other form of tampering, reasonable probative measures are sufficient.” State v. Hager , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Safety, (quotation omitted); (noting that chain -of-custody authentication is necessary when the item is not unique, but without indication of any forms of tampering, reasonable probative measures are sufficient to establish chain of custody).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When the state presents evidence that “is unique, and thus identifiable in court on the basis of its distinctive appearance, evidence that the object is the same object, and is in substantially the same condition, can usually be offered through the testimony of one or more witnesses who each possess personal knowledge.” (quoting M. Graham, Evidence and Trial Advocacy Workshop: Relevance and Exclusion of Relevant Evidence— Real Evidence, 18 Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rnia’s contention that the questions resulted in unfair prejudice because they were “designed to establish chain of custody for the drugs to make sure the drugs were admissible.” The chain-of-custody rule does not require the elimination of “[a]ll possibility of alteration, substitution, or change of condition.” –22 (Minn. App. 2014) (d 43, 44 (Minn. 1982)), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
the photos could have been “manipulated.” But in the context of suspect chain-of-custody foundation, our supreme court has held foundation sufficient “when there is a ‘reasonabl[e] probab[ility] that tampering or substitution did not occur,’ and the evidence is what the proponent claims.” d 281, 303 (Minn. 2019) (alterations in original) ().
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
" State v. Hager , , 44 (Minn. 1982) (quoting State v. Johnson , 307 Minn. 501 , , 242 (1976) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
” State v. Hager , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Donell Holifield Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Donell Holifield Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“All possibility of alteration, substitution, or change of condition need not be eliminated in laying a chain-of-custody foundation,” but “the more authentication is genuinely in issue, and the more susceptible the item is to alteration, substitution, or change of condition, the greater the need to negate such possibilities.” (quotations omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
901(b)(1), (4) (providing that evidence may be authenticated by testimony of witness with knowledge or by distinctive characteristics); (stating testimony from a witness who possess “personal knowledge” that object, either because of its distinctive characteristics or establishment of chain of custody of continuous possession of object so 6 that it is in the same condition is the one
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If the district court determines that evidence is admissible, the credibility of the supporting proof may be challenged at trial and “[t]he trier of fact renders the ultimate decision as to whether the item of real evidence admitted in evidence is as it is purported to be.” -45 (Minn. 1982) (quotation omitted).
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 501, 504-05 , (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); (reaffirming Johnson after the adoption of Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Bellikka 490 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Bellikka 490 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(discussing the authentication and identification of evidence for admissibility).
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Greene 463 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Greene 463 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
the court said: “[tjhere can be no rigid formulation of what showing is necessary in order for a particular item of evidence to be admissible” and that admissibility generally “must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Id.
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
901(a), (b)(5); -45 (Minn.1982).
Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Berendes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Berendes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
quoting M. Graham, Evidence and Trial Advocacy Workshop: Relevance and Exclusion of Relevant Evidence —Real Evidence, 18 Crim.L.Bull.
State v. Carr 361 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1985
State v. Carr 361 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1985
the foundation clearly was adequate.
Schram v. Commissioner of Public Safety 359 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Schram v. Commissioner of Public Safety 359 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
quoting M. Graham, Evidence and Trial Advocacy Workshop: Relevance and Exclusion of Relevant Evidence— Real Evidence, 18 Crim.L.Bull.
State v. Sneva 353 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1984
State v. Sneva 353 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1984
104, 702, and 901; State v. Anderson, 302 Minn. 77
State v. Dulak 348 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1984
State v. Dulak 348 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1984
State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1983
State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1983