Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Conklin, 444 N.W.2d 268.

46 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Eddie Lee Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Andy Ralph Garbow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
ied honestly or dishonestly at th e trial here in the courtroom, not to determine whether the statements she made are accurate accounts of what the State alleges happened.” D-6 as substantive evidence, while leaving her direct testimony intact, was no substitute for the “[f]ace-to-face confrontation [that] is ‘the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause.’” (quoting Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1988)); see also Coy, 487 U.S. at 1017 (“[T]here is something deep in human natur
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. J. C. L., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. J. C. L., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4(c) establishes a permissible exception to the confrontation clause because it requires a specific finding that the denial of the right to confrontation is necessary to effectuate an important public policy.”
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Under this standard, “the state has the burden to show that the errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by showing that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”
State of Minnesota v. Max Leo Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The burden is on the state to show that the constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, meeting this burden “by showing that the error did not contribute to the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Slade James Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In State v. Conklin, the Minnesota Supreme Cou rt stated that section 595.02, subdivision 4(c), “establishes a permissible exception to the confrontation clause.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Alfonso Terrell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“When constitutional errors are involved, the state has the burden to show that the errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by showing that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. O. K. and C. L. K., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2021
It admitted the out-of- court statements of victim 2 and victim 3 and determining that the statements wer e reliable.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
The burden is on the State “to show that the errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by showing that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”
Gregory Levon Spraggins, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gregory Levon Spraggins, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that prohibition against admission of hearsay statements “protect[s] the integrity of the factfinding process by ensuring that only reliable evidence will be used against a defendant.
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 and having found “by specific evidence that the particular witness is or would be psychologically traumatized and that traumatization is substantially caused by the presence of the defendant.” 274 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
whether the person talking with the child had a preconceived idea of what the child would say[,] and the lack of leading or suggestive questions.” L.E.P., d at 170 ().
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (“[T]he Court has applied harmless-error analysis to a wide range of errors and has recognized that most constitutional errors can be harmless.”); (“When constitutional errors are involved, the state has the burden to show that the errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by showing *851 that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”).
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
for the proposition that the credibility of the witness who testifies to the out-of-court statement is another circumstance that must be considered before reliability is determined.
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
State v. Cole 594 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
In Re the Welfare of L.E.P. 594 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1999
Minnesota courts have articulated a number of additional factors to consider in evaluating the reliability of out-of-court statements by young children including “the knowledge of the declarant, the motives of the declarant and witnesses to speak truthfully and the proximity in time between the statement and the events described.” cert.
State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Lee 494 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1993
State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
(case preceding Wright).
State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1991
State v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1991
(case preceding Wright).
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
Relevant cases of this court interpreting and applying the statute include:
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (citations omitted)