Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hawkinson, 829 N.W.2d 367.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1 The Minnesota and United States Supreme Courts “have previously identified two indices of bad faith: (1) whether the State purposefully destroyed evidence favorable to a defendant so as to hide it; and (2) whether the State failed to follow standard procedures when it destroyed the evidence.” (citations omitted).
In re Hope Coalition, Petitioner. Minn. 2022
17 “the ability to cross-examine witnesses.” (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50 (2004)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When reviewing a destruction-of-evidence claim, we consider “whether the exculpatory value of lost or destroyed evidence was apparent and material before the evidence was destroyed.”
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The “admission of a forensic report as evidence violate[s] a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights when the specific technician who ha[s] conducted the forensic analysis [is] not made available at trial, and the defendant ha[s] not had a chance to cross-examine the analyst before trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Finally, as to appellant’s third argument, is controlling.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In determining whether the destruction of evidence constitutes a due-process violation, we first decide if the destroyed evidence had “apparent and material exculpatory value.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“At the core of this right is the ability to cross-examine witnesses because the principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was particularly the civil law’s use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bad faith requires an intentional 9 act by the state, as well as a showing that the state either (1) “purposefully destroyed evidence favorable to a defendant so as to hide it,” or (2) “failed to follow standard procedures when it destroyed the evidence.”