Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ortlepp, 363 N.W.2d 39.

113 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kihanya argues that the statements in A.E.’s
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
(“[Since [the witness] admitted making the prior statement, there was no real dispute over *375 whether he made it or over what it contained.
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
(discussing requirements for admission of evidence under residual exception).
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
Although the district court’s decision to dismiss the first-degree criminal sexual conduct charge is not before us on this appeal, addressed the admissibility of a prior inconsistent statement under the residual "catch-all” exception to the hearsay rule.
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
D. Catchall Hearsay Exception The state also argues that Thompson’s
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v.. Ortlepp, sets forth the standard for determining whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence under Rule 803(24).
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
the supreme court held that an accomplice’s statement, which the accomplice claimed at trial was false, had sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible under rule 803(24).
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
See Ostrem, d at 923 (stating that “[i]t is undisputed that aiding and abetting is not a separate substantive offense”); State v. Alexander, 290 Minn. 5, 5-10 , State v. Britt, 279 Minn. 260, 263-65 , -64 (1968).
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
See State v. Britt, 279 Minn. 260, 263-65 , -64 (1968); State v. Alexander, 290 Minn. 5 -10
Oliver v. State 502 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1993
Oliver v. State 502 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1993
which is closely in point, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment of conviction.
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Skjefte 428 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Skjefte 428 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The trial court determined that D.R.’s pet.
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the court ruled the prior statement of an available witness admissible within the catchall exception where the witness admitted the statement and it was consistent with the other evidence produced by the state.
In Re the Welfare of W.W.M. 400 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Welfare of W.W.M. 400 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by