Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gillespie, 710 N.W.2d 289.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. 2026
Although we have never addressed a situation in which a third party made statements about a conscious adult’s medical condition, the court of appeals addressed a review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The right to an impartial jury “includes the ability to conduct an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.” (quotation omitted); (“The purpose of voir dire is to probe the jury for bias or partiality to enable counsel to exercise informed peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
Derrick Lemar Forest, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The presence of a third party during consultation or treatment renders statements a patient makes to a physician nonprivileged if the third party is not a necessary and customary participant in the consultation or treatment.” d 289, 298 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The purpose of voir dire is to probe the jury for bias or partiality to enable counsel to exercise informed peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.” d 289, 295 (Minn. App. 2006) (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The error here was not plain because “[n]either the caselaw nor the rules of crim inal procedure impose on the district court a duty to strike prosp ective jurors for cause sua sponte.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
1118 , 1120 (1903) (concluding that a physician may testify to the fact that the insured was his patient, and the number of times that the physician attended to him); State v. Gillespie , , 298 (Minn. App. 2006) (holding that because the privilege is personal a criminal defendant cannot assert the privilege of another person as a shield), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 289, 294 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006); Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the district court specifically asked the pro se defendant at the conclusion of voir dire whether he was passing his opportunity to assert a for-cause challenge, and the defendant responded by saying, “Yes, oh yes.” Id.
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P. A., Nina Mattson 863 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P. A., Nina Mattson 863 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5(1); review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“The [physician-patient] privilege is solely for the protection of the patient and is designed to promote health and not truth.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State v. Spangler 816 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Spangler 816 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“The purpose of the privilege is to encourage patients’ full disclosure of information, which will enable medical providers to extend the best medical care possible.” review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).