Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Traylor, 656 N.W.2d 885.

36 citing documents.

Michael Walton Hinton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael Walton Hinton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
See State v. Traylor , 3–94 (Minn. 2003) (“[I]n determining the foundational reliability .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
We have recognized that “ ‘DNA test results are only as reliable and accurate as the testing procedures used by the particular laboratory.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
liable conclusion and contends that the BCA’s “standard operating interpretation procedures at the time make no mention of analyzing major mixtures.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the DNA Advisory Board’s “standards are the appropriate standards and procedures against which laboratories must be measured to ensure the foundational reliability of DNA testing.” 897 (Minn. 2003).
Cindy Ly, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Goeb, d at 813–14; –93 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The state’s processing of physical evidence is “usually a valid reason for delay.” (approving delay to process DNA evidence), rev’d in part on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
so that the defense is able to adequately cross-examine the [state’s witnesses].”
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
State v. Hawkinson 829 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2013
In pressing his due process arguments
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The district court stated that, under Minnesota caselaw, the relevant scientific community consists of “experts in the field,”
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
usually associated "with the commission of the offense in question.’ ” Rourke, d at 922 (citation omitted); see also, -55 (Minn.1982) (noting that putting the victim in acute fear of death, killing her, and then concealing the body was particularly cruel); rev’d on other grounds, (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a double durational departure based on particular cruelty because the defendant repeatedly abused the victim after stabbing her and actively prev
State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(holding that DNA PCR-STR test results were admissible despite the defense’s lack of access to test-kit primer sequences or validation studies that the state’s experts also lacked access to); -49 (Minn.App.)
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
In Roman Nose’s appeal, now before this court
State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
While this case was on appeal
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
rev’d, should be considered authority for excluding the DNA evidence, which involved the use of the STR process.
State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
We reverse, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our holding in State v. Traylor, No. C6-01-244