Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352.

168 citing documents.

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. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jamison Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A (concluding “that the disputed evidence was otherwise admissible as tending to show a strained relationship between appellant and [the victim]”).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jamison Brewer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
cmt.); d 352, 366 (Minn. 1999) (concluding that testimony concerning declarant’s statement that defendant had threatened to shoot her was admissible as excited utterance because declarant was “extremely agitated, upset, and afraid,” which “indicate[d] that at the time [declarant] made the statement, [she] was still under the st
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Circumstantial and direct evidence are given the same weight.2
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If counsel fails to request such instructions and the district court fails to give them, it does not create “grounds for reversal absent a showing of plain error.”
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that the strained relationship also put the acts into context)
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Marquette Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Marquette Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
was impermissible character evidence “portraying [him] as a violent person with a history of beating R.D.” (concluding that “disputed evidence was otherwise admissible as tending to show a strained relationship between [the] appellant and [the victim]”).
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
with intent but without premeditation.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The rationale for this exception stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” 8 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although “it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-24 (Minn. 2000) (quotations omitted); see, (holding that a statement fell within the excited-utterance exception when a witness testified that the declarant was “very upset,” “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid”).
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Dean Darrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abe Joseph Boushee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Dotterweich Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Dotterweich Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
There are “no strict temporal guidelines for admitting an excited utterance.”
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 statements as excited utterances where there was testimony that the declarant was “ver
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Circumstantial evidence is “entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by