Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lanam, 459 N.W.2d 656.

74 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
We consider the “the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statements” to assess whether it is “particularly likely that the declarant was telling the truth at the time of making the statements.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And “[w]here the court is in doubt as to the child’s competency, it is best to err on the side of determining the child to be competent.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Any theoretical merit to Rote’s argument rests on the maxim that, when the district court “is in doubt as to [a testifying] child’s competency, it is best to err on the side of determining the child to be competent.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
3); (affirming a district court’s finding that statements made by a three-year-old to a daycare provider were reliable under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
(citing State v. Lanam , , 661 (Minn. 1990) ).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.A.W., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Where the court is in doubt as to the child’s competency, it is best to err on the side of determining the child to be competent.” State v. Lanam
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining whether a child is competent to testify, a district court must determine “whether the child remembers or can relate events truthfully.” (quoting State v. Lanam , -60 (Minn. 1990)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Where the court is in doubt as to the child’s competency, it is best to err on the side of determining the child to be competent.”
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The relevant circumstances under rule 807 are those surrounding the making of the statement because the goal is to determine “whether the statement itself is reliable.” Ahmed, d at 260–61 ().
State of Minnesota v. Arne Henry Mahlberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arne Henry Mahlberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The relevant circumstances under rule 807 are ‘those circumstances actually surrounding the making of the statements.’” Ahmed, d at 260 ().
State of Minnesota v. Edgar Arturo Cano-Fernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edgar Arturo Cano-Fernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Where the court is in doubt as to the child’s competency, it is best to err on the side of determining the child to be competent.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
807 are “those circumstances actually surrounding the making of the statements.”
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Richard Angotti Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Similarly, the supreme court reasoned that the out-of-court statements of the three-year-old victim were sufficiently reliable because the child’s statements regarding the abuse were spontaneous and consistent, the child had no motive to 6 fabricate, the questions
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
To determine whether the child is competent to testify, the district court must “test whether the child has the ability to relate events truthfully.” (-60 (Minn.1990)).
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The relevant circumstances under rule 807 are “those circumstances actually surrounding the making of the statements.” cert.
State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-62 (Minn.1990) (holding evidence consisting largely of four-year-old victims out-of-court statement identifying defendant as perpetrator was sufficient to sustain defendants conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct).
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“Where the court is in doubt as to the child’s competency, it is best to err on the side of determining the child to be competent.”
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
3139 ; (“the focus is not on all the circumstances, including evidence at trial corroborating the * * * statements, but only on those circumstances actually surrounding the making of the statements.”).
State v. Cole 594 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Cole 594 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
*199 sets out the criteria for reliability: The court must consider, among other things, the spontaneity of the statements, the consistency of the statements, the knowledge of the declarants, the motives of the declarant and witnesses to speak truthfully and the proximity in time between the statement and the
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
State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Hollander 590 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
pontaneous, whether the person talking with the child had a preconceived idea of what the child should say, whether the statements were in response to leading or suggestive questions, whether the child had any apparent motive to fabricate, and whether the statements are the type of statements one would expect a child of that age to fabricate.” Larson II, d at 125 () (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 820-825 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Danforth 573 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Danforth 573 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
at 3148 ; (“[T]he focus is not on all the circumstances, including evidence at trial corroborating the child’s statements, but only on those circumstances actually surrounding the making of the statements.”).
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995