Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tovar, 605 N.W.2d 717.
-
State v. Caine
746 N.W.2d 339
Minn. 2008
(holding that an interview including police statements was admissible because the police statements were offered not “for their truth, but rather to give context to [the defendant’s] responses and admissions on the tape”); -76 (Minn.2004).
- State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
- State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
- State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
-
Distinguished
State v. Burrell
697 N.W.2d 579
Minn. 2005
where an interrogator’s exaggeration of his knowledge of facts regarding the crime “turned out to be true.” Bernhardt, d at 475 .
- Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
-
Bernhardt v. State
684 N.W.2d 465
Minn. 2004
should control the outcome of this case.
- State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. Hoppe
641 N.W.2d 315
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Absent specific and clear objections raised before the district court, a reviewing court “will generally not consider issues of the admissibility of evidence raised for the first time on appeal.” (citation omitted).
- State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
-
State v. Henderson
620 N.W.2d 688
Minn. 2001
(citing Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct.
- State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
-
State v. Gates
615 N.W.2d 331
Minn. 2000
We look at the record “‘to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’ ” ().
- State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000