Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68.

122 citing documents.

State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Miranda 622 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Miranda 622 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
State v. Fisher 588 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
(defendant’s request for in camera review of mental health records was properly denied by district court due to defendant’s failure to show how records could be rele vant to his defense); (in camera review of welfare department records ordered); State
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
State v. Stewart 514 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1994
The standard for the admissibility of photographs was set by this court in State v. De Zeler, 230 Minn. 39 , as follows: [I]t is within the trial court’s discretion to admit photographs, even ghastly ones, so *565 long as they show something that a witness could describe and are material to some relevant issue.
State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
State v. Brenner 488 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Brenner 488 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See, -72 (Minn.1992); d at 926 .
State v. Schmid 487 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Schmid 487 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
our supreme court recently held that Ritchie and Paradee do not provide for automatic in-camera examinations but, rather, require the defendant to make some showing as to the relevancy of the confidential material.
State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
*123 (); see also Olson, d at 820 (citing Minn.R.Evid.