Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bobadilla, 709 N.W.2d 243.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
is whether it was prepared for litigation.” Caulfield, d at 309; (“[T]he key to determining whether a statement is testimonial is whether either a declarant or government questioner is acting, to a substantial degree, in order to produce a statement for trial.”).
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
The supreme court has said on multiple occasions that “the critical determinative factor in assessing whether a statement is testimonial is 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) ); (r
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
See State v. Hansen , , 102 (Minn. 1981) (noting that a period of two weeks between an event and a statement about the event diminished trustworthiness), abrogation on other grounds recognized in State v. Bobadilla , , 248 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Hansen , , 105 (Minn. 1981) (reversing and remanding for new trial because record did not include "any direct or indirect evidence indicating that defendant's conduct had caused" the witness's refusal to testify), abrogation recognized by State v. Bobadilla , , 248 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A year after its decision in Scacchetti, (Bobadilla I).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hill 336 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The Supreme Court determined in Crawford that the “Confrontation Clause test bars at trial all ‘testimonial’ out-of-court statements when the accused is not afforded ‘a prior opportunity to cross-examine’ the declarant.” State v. Bobadilla, *259 (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61 , 124 S.Ct.
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
State v. Krasky 736 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2007
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 i
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
Danforth v. State 718 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2006
Danforth v. State 718 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2006
State v. Scacchetti 711 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 2006
Explained State v. Scacchetti 711 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 2006