Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larson, 472 N.W.2d 120.

26 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, (analyzing hearsay statements by a child, including statements to a psychologist “during therapy,” and concluding that “the least troubling [statements] .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hollander, d at 346 (quoting State v. Larson , ).
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(Larson II) (reasoning that preschool-aged victim of sexual abuse, who was taken to family practice clinic after complaining of vaginal soreness and burning urination, “had the same ‘selfish’ treatment-related motive to speak the truth that anyone has when one goes to a doctor’s office sincerely
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
29 , 112 L.Ed.2d 7 (1990), aff'd on reh’g
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
courts have articulated a number of additional factors to consider in evaluating the reliability of out-of-court statements by young children including “the knowledge of the declarant, the motives of the declarant and witnesses to speak truthfully and the proximity in time between the statement and the events described.” cert.
State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“[T]here is no need to rely on the statute if evidence is admissible pursuant to Rule 803(24).” Id.; (Larson II) (district court admitted child-victim’s out-of-court statements under Minn.Stat.
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
at 3144, 3146 (holding that Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(24) is not a firmly rooted hearsay exception for Confrontation Clause purposes); (noting that residual hearsay exceptions are not firmly rooted for Confrontation Clause purposes).
In Re the Welfare of S.R.A. 527 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of S.R.A. 527 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(admission of statements for the purpose of showing consistency was not in violation of the hearsay rules), cert.
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Salazar 504 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1993
State v. Salazar 504 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1993
State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
123-26 n. 1 (Minn.1991).
State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(when child’s statement admitted under residual exception to hearsay rule, confrontation clause requires reliability be established from totality of circumstances surrounding making of statement, not evidence corroborating truth of matter asserted in statement), cert.
State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
693 , 112 L.Ed.2d 684 (1991)