Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Langley, 354 N.W.2d 389.
-
State v. Race
383 N.W.2d 656
Minn. 1986
Significant inconsistencies in appellant’s statements to authorities substantially diminished the credibility of his assertion of the existence of two rafts, so the jury had “substantial grounds to doubt the veracity of [the defendant’s] story.”
- State v. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
- State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
- State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Richardson
363 N.W.2d 793
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant asserts the evidence was improperly used to show that he had a propensity for dealing in stolen property, and that the clear reference from the evidence is that appellant takes property and then sets fires.
- State v. Ortlepp 363 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1985
-
State v. Ortlepp
363 N.W.2d 39
Minn. 1985
We have considered either Rule 803(24) or 804(b)(5) in a number of cases, including: (admission of hearsay accounts of prior assaults upon homicide victim by defendant under Rule 804(b)(5)); (holding in a criminal case that a statement by an unavailable declarant was not admissible as a declaration against his penal interest and was not admissible
- State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
- State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
- Marriage of M.N.D. v. B.M.D. 356 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Mnd v. Bmd 356 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
Marriage of M.N.D. v. B.M.D.
356 N.W.2d 809
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 398 (Minn.1984) (hearsay statements of a battered woman regarding past assaults admitted under residual exception in Minn.R.Evid.
-
Mnd v. Bmd
356 N.W.2d 813
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 398 (Minn.1984) (hearsay statements of a battered woman regarding past assaults admitted under residual exception in Minn.R.Evid.