Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scacchetti, 711 N.W.2d 508.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- 15 (Minn. 2006); (concluding that dec larant’s statements to family members before her death were nontestimonial), rev’d on other grounds, 555 U.S. 1092 (2009).
State of Minnesota v. Rosalio Martinez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Rosalio Martinez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
is whether it was prepared for litigation.” Caulfield, d at 309 (-51 (Minn. 2006) (“[T]he testimonial question turns on whether government questioners or declarants take or give a statement ‘with an eye toward trial.’”) (“[T]he central considerations are .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
whether it was prepared for litigation.” Caulfield, d at 309; - 51 (Minn. 2006) (noting that Minnesota appellate courts and numerous others have “determined that the testimonial question turns on whether government questioners or declarants take or give a sta tement with an eye toward trial”) (quotation omitted) ); (recognizing central consideration in assessing potentially testimonial 12 evidence was “whether either a declarant or government questioner is actin g, to a substantial degree, in or
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Scacchetti , -15 (Minn. 2006); but see Bobadilla v. Carlson, 575 F.3d 785, 791-93 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding that statements by child victim in interview by social worker as part of police investigation were testimonial).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Caulfield, d at 309; (explaining that whether evidence is testimonial d epends largely on “whether eit her a declarant or government questioner is acting, to a substantial degree, in or der to produce a statement for trial” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minnesota Voters Alliance, Relators v. Anoka-Hennepin School District, Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 868 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota Voters Alliance, Relators v. Anoka-Hennepin School District, Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 868 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-15 (Minn. 2006) (discussing numerous factors bearing on the “purpose” of a statement); -07 (Minn. App. 1996) (discussing nuances of language in defamation doctrines of hyperbole, opinion, and substantial truth), review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996).
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
382 , 166 L.Ed.2d 270 (2006), both of which dealt with application of the Confrontation Clause to statements by child victims to medical professionals.
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
-51 (Minn.2006) (noting that this court and numerous others have “determined that the testimonial question turns on whether government questioners or declarants take or give a statement ‘with an eye toward trial’ ”); (recognizing that the central consideration in assessing potentially testimonial evidence was “whether either a declarant or government questioner is acting, to a substantial degree, in order to produce a statement for trial”).
State v. Krasky 721 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Krasky 721 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
It vacated section I of this court’s May 24, 2005 opinion, with instructions to reconsider the Crawford issue in light of the supreme court’s