DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    “"While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    702; (holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony).
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
    See, (holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted, such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative).
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
    803(2), an “excited utterance,” is admissible if it “relat[es] to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” There are “no strict temporal guidelines for admitting an excited utterance.” State *224 v. Bauer
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (holding that before admitting “relationship” evidence, court must find it to be shown by clear and convincing evidence and to have probative value outweighing potential for unfair prejudice); (same).
  • State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Consistent with rule 404(b), evidence of a defendant’s prior acts may be admitted for the purpose of “illuminating the relationship” of the defendant and the victim and “placing the incident with which defendant was charged in proper context.” (quotations and citation omitted)
  • State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Vue 606 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999