Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seelye v. State, 429 N.W.2d 669.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Seelye v. State, this court determined that the third factor favors reliability of identification evidence when it is “on the whole, accurate.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
409 U.S. 188, 196-200 (1972); -73 (Minn. App. 1988) (summarizing and applying the two-step analysis from Biggers).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(classifying description as “on the whole, accurate” even though “[t]he height was off, and [the witness] did not notice a mustache”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that witness’s description was “on the whole, accurate” even when the height was wrong and witness did not notice a mustache but “accurately described the clothes worn, facial features, complexion, hair and weight”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(finding that the witness’s description was “on the whole, accurate” when the height was wrong and the defendant did not have a mustache, but the witness “accurately described the clothes worn, facial features, complexion, hair and weight”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ctor cut against adm ission where the witness had only a brief opportunity to view the perpetrators), the adequacy of the lighting and the witness’s distance from the perpetrator, Ostrem, d at 922 (holding that this factor favored admission when the witness saw the perpetrator “during daylight hours from relatively close range”), and whether the two faced each other, d 669, 673 (Minn. App. 1988) (holding that this factor favored ad mission when the witness 9 saw the perpetrator “through a glass
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
It is sufficient that the p hotographs in an array have a “reasonable physical similarity to the accused .” -73 (Minn. App. 1988).
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A conviction based on eyewitness identification “will be reversed only if the photographic ‘identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’ ” (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct.
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
aff'd as modified, (testimony as to the truthfulness or.
Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
However, regardless of the admissibility of the photo line-up, a subsequent in-court identification is permissible if the in-court identification has “an adequate independent origin so as to negate or reduce the likelihood of misidentification.” (quoting Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Buhl 520 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Buhl 520 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See e.g., Moorman, d at 601 ; DeWald, d at 504 ; -15 (Minn.1990); Norris, d at 69 ; -44 (Minn.1987); -03 (Minn.1984); (Minn.App.
State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990