Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martinez, 725 N.W.2d 733.

54 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(applying a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts afford trial courts “considerable discretion in admitting evidence” and “review their evidentiary rulings for an abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
Ronald Lee Schlangen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. 2019
Accordingly, the procedure a district court should follow when a defendant is convicted of a charged offense and a lesser -included offense is “to adjudicate fo rmally and impose sentence on one count only.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court has since held that the factors from Ortlepp “are not an exclusive list of the indicia of reliability.” State v. Martinez
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Under the plain-error standard, a defendant must show t hat there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” ; (stating that the defendant has the burden of showing that each of the three prongs is satisfied).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
44 (Minn. 1985); see also State v. Martinez , –38 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Martinez , -38 (Minn. 2007).
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
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Failure to object to the admission of evidence generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal on that basis; however, [an appellate] court has discretion to consider an error not 6 objected to at trial if it is plain error that affects substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Ira Dell Sholar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ira Dell Sholar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Failure to object to the admission of evidence generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal on that basis; however, this court has discretion to consider an error not objected to at trial if it is plain error that affects substantial rights.”).
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Equivalent Circumstantial Guarantees of Trustworthiness To determine whether a statement has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, we consider the “totality of the circumstances.” –38 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Courts consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether a statement has “sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.” d 733, 737-38 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(applying a totality of the circumstances analysis).
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] afford trial courts considerable discretion in admitting evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying this analysis to rule 803(24), the predecessor of rule 807).
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 733, 737 (Minn. 2007).
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
-90 (Minn.2011); -80 (Minn.2010); -95 (Minn.2010); (discussing that an inmate refused to testify at a trial because “living in prison as a snitch was worse than the possibility of a longer sentence for refusing to testify”).
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
*353 (quotation omitted) (considering prior version of Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
“We afford trial courts considerable discretion in admitting evidence” and “review their evidentiary rulings for an abuse of that discretion.”
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008