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. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70.

126 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    “A Schwartz hearing is not mandated until a defendant establishes a prima facie case of jury misconduct.”
  • Stephen Carl Allwine, Minn. 2023
  • In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Marie Larson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    And “[p]olygraph test results are not admitted in Minnesota civil or criminal actions because there is insufficient evidence of their reliability.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    State v. McBroom , , 812 (Minn. App. 1986) , review denied (Minn. Jan.
  • State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    see State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221-22, (stating that the rationale for the rule prohibiting the admissibility of polygraph-related evidence is that polygraph examination does not have “such scientific and psychological accuracy, nor its operators such sureness of
  • State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (explaining under a previous version of rule 26.03 that lack of sequestration “does not raise a presumption of prejudice” and a defendant must show prejudice in the form of private communications, contacts, or other suspicious circumstances).
  • State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    In Fenney , for the proposition that “ ‘[t]he scientific technique on which expert testimony is based must be scientifically reliable and broadly accepted in its field,’ ” and noted that “[t]he test, then requires neither unanimity nor acceptance outside its particular field.” d at 57-58 .
  • Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
    are routinely used to prove that a particular person was present at a particular place or did a specific act[,]” (internal quotation marks omitted), and that handwriting analysis is “widely accepted by this court and others as a means to identify a signature as that of a particular signer.”
  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
    Compare Mack, d at 768 (applying Frye to hypnotically-induced testimony), (applying Frye and excluding the results of a personality assessment), (holding that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is admissible); (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admit
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Smith 619 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
    Circumstantial evidence must lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant is guilty, (), and, as applied in this case, to conclude that Johnson acted with premeditation.
  • Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
  • Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
    (holding that graphology “is accorded a low measure of scientific reliability in predicting character or state of mind and is not generally accepted in the scientific fields of psychology and psychiatry”); -20 (Minn.1992) (affirming the district court’s admiss
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
    *902 Prejudice will be presumed upon a showing by the defendant of private communications or contact or other circumstances suggesting direct or indirect improper influence or jury tampering, such as “pervasive, unfavorable publicity.” cert.
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
    at 661 ; (evidence showed third person present at crime scene).
  • State v. Jackson 596 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Jackson 596 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    (facts alleged for a Schwartz hearing may not be wholly speculative).
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
    Likewise, the evidence showed that a third party was present at the crime scene.
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Stevens 580 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Stevens 580 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    A conviction based on circumstantial evidence will be upheld if the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” State v.. Anderson, (citations omitted).
  • State v. Church 577 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Church 577 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997