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. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352.

168 citing documents.

  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    (applying Spreigl analysis to relationship evidence by requiring the district court to find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed the prior act and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any unfair prejudice).
  • State v. Brown 796 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Brown 796 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Although circumstantial evidence merits the same weight as direct evidence, we scrutinize more strictly convictions that depend on circumstantial evidence
  • State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Although circumstantial evidence merits the same weight as direct evidence, we must apply a stricter degree of scrutiny on review of convictions that depend on circumstantial evidence
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
    (holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by-the medical examiner’s testimony that the victim’s assailant intended to kill her because the jury could infer intent to kill when the victim was covered in bruises and strangled by a telephone cord wrapped tightly around her neck, and secured by a met
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
    evidence of past abuse of or threats against the victim or her family by the defendant has generally been deemed admissible against 404(b) challenges.”
  • In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (stating that "[e]ven if not violative of the hearsay rule, .
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
    We have recognized that the district court “has wide discretion in permitting use of [written material] to refresh a witness’s memory and in the references that may be made thereto.” (internal alteration and quotation omitted).
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
    See State v. *277 Bauer, (victim’s statement to her brother was an excited utterance because she was “very upset,” “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid”); (declarant’s statement 90 minutes after a murder was an excited utterance because he was “scared,” “shaky,” and “very
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
    See, (affirming district court’s confinement of pathologist’s testimony to limits of his expertise).
  • State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Even though we scrutinize circumstantial evidence more carefully, it “is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mayhorn 720 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
    4 (“Character evidence which tends to show the ‘strained relationship’ between the accused and the victim is relevant to establishing motive and intent and is therefore admissible.
  • Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Auringer v. State 695 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
  • State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
    But a homicide victim’s state of mind regarding the defendant may become relevant “where the defendant raises the defense of accident, suicide, or self-defense.” (); (concluding that statements that homicide victim was going to take her girls and leave was relevant to rebut defendant’s claim that the victim, his wife, murdered his daughter an
  • State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
  • State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
    Where direct evidence is not available, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be “entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Davis 656 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Davis 656 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
    By contrast, demonstrative or illustrative evidence is “ ‘admitted, when properly verified, to illustrate or express the testimony of a competent witness, but [is] not original evidence.’ ” (quoting Strasser v. Stabeck, 112 Minn. 90, 92 , 127 N.W.
  • State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002