Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d 340.

182 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Scott Clarence Carrillo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“On appeal, we review the limits placed by the district court on the release and use of protected records for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Jesus Pomavilla Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Beth Ellenberg Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. John Chrystopher Murdock Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Pierce Gerald Heston Minn. Ct. App. 2021
As to the first step of the Strickland analysis, “[t]he objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” State v. Hokanson , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Martez Eubanks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Criminal defendants are thus accorded “a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Steven LeCuyer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When a criminal defendant requests protected records “the district court may screen the confidential reco rds in camera to balance the right of the defendant to prepare and present a defense ag ainst the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Fettig Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“District courts have discretion in ruling on evidentiary matters, and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discret ion.” State v. Hokanson
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. F. and A. J. F., … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Hokanson , 4 (Minn. 2012) (“[W]e explained that although the State may prove a pattern beyond a reasonable doubt ‘even if the State does not prove every claimed predicate act of the pattern beyond a reasonable doubt,’ at least two instances must be proven beyond a re asonable doubt to constitute a pattern.” (footnote omi
Rhonda Renee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Esteban Trevino v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Arron Whitney McDole Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Criminal defendants have a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Fidel Leon Castro Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 340, 349 (Minn. 2012).
Michael David Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jared Phillip Renner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Hokanson , n.1 (Minn. 2012) (stating that a “witness’s testimony is direct evidence when it is based on the witness’s own knowledge of the facts”).
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
State v. Hokanson , , 357 (Minn. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Hayes , d at 553 (including in circumstances proved medical testimony that child victim's "cranial trauma was more severe than could be explained by a mere accidental household fall"); State v. Hokanson , , 355 (Minn. 2012) (including in circumstances proved that child victim "did not have any blood disorder or other medical problem that would have caused him to bruise easily"); State v. Rhodes , , 841 (Minn. 2003) (noting that medical testimony about the cause of a victim's injuries "suppor
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Salanius Ortiz Dixon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“On appeal, we review the limits placed by the district court on the release and use of protected record s for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Geoffrey Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court has “considerable latitude ” in the selection of language for jury instructions, and “we will not reverse where jury instructions overall fairly a nd correctly state the applicable law.”
State of Minnesota v. David Franklin Bentley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Hokanson , n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Appel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
Barbara Ann Currin v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Phoebus Phaeton Apollo Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“O n appeal, we review the limits placed by 7 the district court on the rele ase and use of protected record s for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hokanson , , 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
Demiteras Al Cooper v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Luby 904 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 2017
Brian Allen Barthel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Daniel Onguenyi Nyagoko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 20 63-64 (1984) (quotation omitted); State v. Hokanson
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
We have defined circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the factfin-der can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” , 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quoting 1 Barbara E. Bergman & Nancy Hollander, Whartons Criminal Evidence § 1:8 (15th ed. 1997)), In contrast, direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”
State of Minnesota v. Adolfo Gutirrez Avila Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Osman Abdi Bashir Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Criminal defendants have a right to prepare and present a complete defense.”
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Levar Price Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Criminal defendants have a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense.”
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
testified that appellant was her “cousin” or “blood cousin.” “[A] witness’s testimony is direct evidence when it is based on the witness’s own knowledge of the facts.” n.1 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When a defendant requests private records that are protected by legislation, such as the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, the district court may conduct an in 8 camera review in order “to balance the right of the defendant to prepare and present a defense against the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy.”
LaQuinn Jamul Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
LaQuinn Jamul Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Mirare Overby Minn. Ct. App. 2016