Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Plantin, 682 N.W.2d 653.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although this factor generally requires that a declarant’s statements be against their own penal interests, we have also determined that it encompasses a statement perceived to be against a declarant’s romantic interest, d 653, 659 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[T]he third Ortlepp factor may be satisfied even when a declarant’s statement is not against the declarant’s penal interest if the declarant is hostile to the state and supportive of the defendant.” ( rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“After a defendant submits to trial before a judge without objecting to the judge on the basis of bias, we will reverse the defendant’s conviction only if the defendant can show actual bias in the proceedings.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Yang appeals.3 DECISION “Defendants have a constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(concluding that a statement by defendant’s girlfriend implicating defendant was against her penal interests); (noting that this element may be satisfied “if the declarant is hostile to the state and supportive of the defendant”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Defendants have a constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Id.; (admitting under prior residual hearsay rule statement made by victim who later recanted; victim admitted to making statement, testified at trial, and made statement consistent with evidence of defendant’s guilt), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“After a defendant submits to trial before a judge without objecting to the judge on the basis of bias, we will reverse the defendant’s conviction only if the defendant can show actual bias in the proceedings.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Our court has held that statements not directly against the declarant’s penal interest may still satisfy the third Ortlepp factor “if the declarant is hostile to the state and supportive of the defendant.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-35 (Minn. 1978); see 4 (holding that conviction of a defendant who submitted to trial without objecting to alleged bias will be reversed only if defendant can show actual bias), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that this factor may be satisfied if the declarant is now hostile to the state and supportive of the defendant and in a romantic relationship with the defendant), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
” State v. Plantin , , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1(5); (providing that “[d]efendants have a constituti onal right to a unanimous verdict”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Plantin , 3 (Minn. App. 2004) (“After a defendant submits to trial before a judge without objecti ng to the judge on the basis of bias, we will reverse the defendant’s convic tion only if the defendant can show actual bias in the proceedings.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minnesota courts have determined that the third factor noted above may also be satisfied if the hearsay statement is against the declarant’s “interests in a relationship with [the defendant].” , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., Davis, d at 537 (listing “the declarant’s relationship to the parties” as a relevant factor); (stating that the third Ortlepp factor was satisfied because the statement was contrary to the victim’s “interests in a rel ationship with” the defendant), review denied ( M i n n .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
659 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(reasoning declarant’s statement satisfied the third Ortlepp factor because it was made against her interest in maintain ing a relationship with the defendant).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Adel Alwan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Martinez, d at 737 (); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, vs.Daniel Irlas 888 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, vs.Daniel Irlas 888 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(defendant’s right to confront a witness 7 was not violated where defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine a witness who testified, but claimed memory loss), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Martinez, d at 737 (); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]his court has found that the third Ortlepp factor may be satisfied even when a declarant’s statement is not against the declarant’s penal interest if the declarant is hostile to the state and supportive of the defendant.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But once a defendant submits to a proceeding before a judge without objecting on the basis of bias, “we will reverse the defendant’s conviction only if the defendant can show actual bias in the proceedings.” d 653, 663 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by