DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Burns, 394 N.W.2d 495.

33 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
    16 him); see also State v. Burns , (“[T]he lack of an admissibility hearing where one would normally be held does not automatically entitle a defendant to relief.”).
  • Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
    (applying a harmless -error analysis to a claim that the district court improperly denied the defendant a Frye-Mack hearing and therefore admitted the DNA evidence in error); (“[T]he lac k of an admissibility hearing where one would normally be held does not automatically entitle a defendant to relief .”); Coralin v. State , d 14, 19–20 (Minn. 1985) (applying a harmless-error analysis to the district court’s erroneous failure to hold a midtrial hearing on th
  • State v. Lehman 511 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Lehman 511 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1994
  • Matter of Welfare of TLJ 495 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Matter of Welfare of TLJ 495 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Kraushaar 470 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1991
    (a defendant ordinarily cannot obtain relief on appeal from the absence of a pretrial hearing on the admission of evidence if he did not object on that ground); (expert testimony on whether it was the defendant who abused the child was objectionable, but
  • State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    29 , 112 L.Ed.2d 7 (1990); (testimony admitted on child’s use of anatomically correct dolls with social worker and police officer); -26 (Minn.App.1990) (videotaped interview admitted of police officer using anatomically correct dolls to interview child), pet.
  • State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
    Relevant cases of this court interpreting and applying the statute include:
  • State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Mindful of the supreme court’s that “a new trial is not necessary if some other lesser remedy * * * would be more appropriate,” we re-examine that portion of the record which is the genesis for both the error and the insufficient evidence perceived by this court earlier in this opinion.
  • State v. Conklin 444 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
    As a rule, the court has the primary authority under the separation of powers doctrine to regulate evidentiary matters, the legislature is exclusively empowered “to define by statute what acts shall constitute a crime and to establish sanctions for their commission.”
  • State v. Dana 422 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Dana 422 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1988
    we reversed a decision of the court of appeals that reversed a conviction of a defendant for sexually abusing his 2V2-year-old daughter.
  • State v. Dana 416 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Dana 416 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
    As we have made clear in other contexts, “we have the primary responsibility under the separation of powers doctrine for the regulation of evidentiary matters,” and this includes the issue of the admissibility in criminal trials of evidence obtained in violation of statutes.
  • State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Kilker’s failure to specifically request a hearing on the admissibility of the Spreigl evidence precludes her from raising a claim of error on appeal.
  • In Re the Welfare of W.W.M. 400 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • In Re the Welfare of W.W.M. 400 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Ramon v. Minnesota 399 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Ramon v. Minnesota 399 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
    The decision to order a new trial rather than to remand for a hearing is also inconsistent with many cases of this court, where we stated that “the award of a new trial is not necessary if some other lesser remedy, e.g., the holding of a post-conviction eviden-tiary hearing, would be more appropriate.”