Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cox, 779 N.W.2d 844.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Maxwell Donovan Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The Minnesota Supreme Court has embraced the U.S. Supreme Court ’s description of the forfeiture - by-wrongdoing exception as a narrow doctrine that “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The Minnesota Supreme Court has described the forfeiture-by- wrongdoing exception as a narrow doctrine that “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Edward Bolster Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of out-of-court statements unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to examine the witness.” (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Jawane Deshawn Bellazan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The Minnesota Supreme Court has described the forfeiture -by-wrongdoing exception as a narrow doctrine that “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Jay Sullivan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 (1988) (“a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court” to determine whether “there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment of conviction”) (emphasis added); (concluding that “[a] reviewing court considers all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, whether erroneously admitted or not,” to determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient); n.3 (Minn. 14 1991) (“In reviewing sufficiency of evidence, c
State of Minnesota v. Savanna Novel Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. 2024
“A witness is not ‘unavailable’ for Confrontation Clause purposes ‘unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.’ ” (quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724–25 (1968)).
Lashazo Reese, Jr., Minn. 2023
In the second petition, Reese contended that our court’s (Cox I), and State v. Cox , d 540 (Minn. 2012) (Cox II), created a change in the law that requires a new trial in his case.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(concluding, after reweighing the evidence, that the state “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence” that a witness was unavailable to testify at the defendant’s trial).
State of Minnesota v. Jayson John Rogahn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Lee Andrew Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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
State v. Cox , , 850 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Crawford , 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Mohamud Hussein Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(applying Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008)).
State of Minnesota v. Russell Lynn Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011