Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 679 N.W.2d 169.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Gene Stensrud Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jason Clayton Adam Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2026
tion by crediting the testimony of the state’s sole witness—appellant’s original Morrison County probation officer— because that probation officer did not supervise Bailey during his probation and thus “had no knowledge of how Bailey had conducted himself over the past three years on probation.” We addressed a similar factual situation in another probation-revocation case
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Manton Minn. Ct. App. 2025
27, 2023); (“Johnson was operating a vehicle after drinking alcoholic beverages.
State of Minnesota v. Donald Eldon Lamont Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Donald Eldon Lamont Minn. Ct. App. 2024
1101(b)(3); (determining that the rules of evidence do not preclude the admission of hearsay evidence in a probation-revocation hearing when a defendant has had ample opportunity to present evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“The necessity requirement is met here as a result of [the witness’s] unavailability due to his refusal to testify.”); (“The requirement of necessity is fulfilled by a showing that the declarant is unavailable.”), overruled on other grounds by Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61; (same); (requiring the prosecution to show “the D-4 unavailability of the witness and the necessity of his testimony” before permitting video testimony).
State of Minnesota v. Antone David Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1101(b)(3); d 169, 174 (Minn. App. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. M.N.M Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[W]hen the defendant has had ample opportunity to present evidence in a probation revocation proceeding, the rules of evidence do not preclude admissi on of hearsay evidence.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Amy Christine Lukes-Quinn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Amonte Dajon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Donald Gordon Moore v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[W]hen the defendant has had ample opportunity to present evidence in a probation revocation proceeding, the rules of evidence do not preclude admission of hearsay evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Trevelle Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A violation may be excusable where there are “extenuating circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Cardinale Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Generally, “when the defendant has had ample opportunity to present evidence in a probation revocation proceeding, the rules of evidence do not preclude admission of hearsay evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, to argue that the district court erred when it admitted the discharge summary without first analyzing whether it was reliable and necessary.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Gregory Beltz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellant argues that, hearsay statements must be necessary and reliable to be admissi ble without violating the accused’s right to confrontation.
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Alpha Bah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Alpha Bah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1101(b)(3) (providing that Minnesota’s evidentiary rules are inapplicable to probation-revocation proceedings); (“When the defendant has had ample opportunity to present evidence in a probation revocation hearing, the rules of evidence do not preclude admission of hearsay evidence .
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alan Ohlegren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alan Ohlegren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Lee Whitelow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Lee Whitelow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(affirming probation revocation upon record showing offender’s “lengthy history of criminal activity and chronic probation and treatment failures”); (affirming revocation of DWI offender’s probation after offender failed to complete aftercare for chemical-dependency treatment, failed to 6 attend an impact-panel discussion pertaining to driving under the influence, and failed to refrain from
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Alan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Alan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(allowing admission of hearsay evidence in probation revocation proceedings).
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
see also White, 502 U.S. at 355 n. 8, 112 S.Ct.