Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Edwards, 485 N.W.2d 911.

67 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Justin Bradley Camp Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Justin Bradley Camp Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“It is for the [district] court, in the exercise of its discretion in making evidentiary rulings, to determine whether the declarant was sufficiently under the aura of excitement.” (quotation omitted); (deferring to the district court’s determination that the declarant was under a sufficient aura of excitement).
Minn. 2023
we determined that the district court abused its discretion in finding that a child’s statements on a 911 call to report her sexual assault and her statements made when police officers arrived at the scene a short time later were not excited utterances.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“It is for the [district] court, in the exercise of its discretion in making discretionary rulings, 6 to determine whether the declarant was sufficiently under the aura of excitement .” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“It is for the [district] court, in the exercise of its discretion in making discretionary rulings, to determine whether the declarant was sufficiently under the aura of excitement.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 825, 110 S. Ct. 3139, 3151-52 (1990)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Edwards , (quotati on and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
803(24).” -46 (Minn. App. 1999)
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kerry M. Mokalla, on behalf of A.M. and A.M. v. Mani M. Mokalla Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
803(2); (setting forth elements of an excited utterance as “a startling event or condition,” a statement that “relates to the event or condition,” and “the statement is made under the stress caused by the event or condition”).
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jamison Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jamison Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The basic elements of an ‘excited utterance’” are “(a) that there be a startling event or condition, (b) that the statement relates to the event or condition, and (c) that the statement is made under the stress caused by the event or condition.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leland Ronald Nelson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2015
803(2); (setting forth elements of an excited utterances as “a startling event or condition,” a statement that “relates to the event or condition,” and “the statement is made under the stress caused by the event or condition”).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, -14 (Minn. 1992) (holding that a child’s statements made to a police officer about five minutes after alleged sexual assault were admissible as excited utterances).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(defining parameters of excited utterance exception to hearsay rule).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeremy John Huey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
803(2); (noting that the exception requires first a startling event or condition, then a statement both relating to the event or condition and made under the stress caused by the event or condition).
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
(citation omitted); (admitting a statement as an excited utterance where there was testimony that the declarant was “very upset,” “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid”); (admitting statement
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(applying Wright, 497 U.S. at 819-820 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
The basic elements of an “excited utterance” are “(a) that there be a startling event or condition, (b) that the statement relates to the event or condition, and (c) that the statement is made under the stress caused by the event or condition.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
804(b)(5)); (examining the circumstances of the statement admitted under Rule 803(24)); Ortlepp, d at 44 (explaining that Rule 804(b)(5) and 803(24) are identical).
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
Cmt.—1989, and we review the determination for an abuse of discretion
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
693 , 112 L.Ed.2d 684 (1991) (holding that incompetent child is unavailable for purposes of hearsay exception); -14 (Minn.1992) (holding that suppression of incompetent child’s statements describing abuse meets critical impact test).
State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
State v. Aubid 591 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1999
(applying abuse of discretion standard in pretrial appeal of trial court decision excluding evidence as inadmissible hearsay not covered by catch-all exception).
State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999