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