Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carver, 380 N.W.2d 821.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that a district court’s failure to make the findings required by section 595.02, subdivision 3(a), was not reversible error because the admitted hearsay statement was “ clearly admissible under the statute”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1 (2020); (concluding that victim testifying that an appellant sexually penetrated her was all that was required to constitute sufficient evidence), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.A.W., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Determination of witness competency rests in the discretion of the trial judge whose finding will not be reversed unless it is a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Carver , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
appellant’s conviction rests on circumstantial evidence.”); (“The only positive evidence that the jury could have relied on .
State of Minnesota v. Edgar Arturo Cano-Fernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edgar Arturo Cano-Fernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION “Determination of witness competency rests in the discretion of the trial judge whose finding will not be reversed unless it is a clear abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
3 “is a legislative enactment of an exception to the hearsay rule.” pet.
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
3 is “a legislative enactment of an exception to the hearsay rule,” pet.
State v. Cain 427 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Cain 427 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
24, 1986); -25 (Minn. Ct.App.1986), pet.
State v. Struss 404 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Struss 404 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Burns 390 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Burns 390 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Carver 390 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Carver 390 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Smith 384 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Smith 384 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Bellotti 383 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The trial court correctly applied the statute by holding a hearing on the admissibility of the evidence outside of the presence of the jury (here before the trial began)