DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

74 citing documents.

  • State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Huss 506 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Huss 506 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Salazar 504 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Salazar 504 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    804(b)(5), 803(24)) are not firmly rooted exceptions and are presumed unreliable and inadmissible unless supported by “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id., 497 U.S. at 816-19 , at 3147-48; cert.
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    1(1) (1990) (child less than ten is competent to testify unless the court finds the child lacks the capacity to remember or to relate facts truthfully); (in competency hearing, trial court must determine whether the child has an ability to understand, to be truthful, and to remember and relate events), cert.
  • State v. Scott 501 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Scott 501 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1993
    and held that in a competency hearing, the task before the trial judge is to test whether the child has the ability to relate events truthfully: [The statute] does not mean that the court is to question the child on the details of possible testimony, but rather means that the court should determine in a g
  • State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    (factors to consider include spontaneity, whether party to whom statement made had preconceived notion, whether statement in response to suggestion or leading, whether child had motive to fabricate and whether statement of type child likely to fabricate), cert.
  • State v. Gamez 494 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Gamez 494 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
    The court of appeals noted that the trial court again seemed to have based exclusion, at least in part, on the complainant’s cert.
  • State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Larson 472 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1991
    But, since our decision preceded the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Wright , we did not have the benefit of the Wright analysis, an analysis on which we relied in upholding the admission of extrajudicial statements of a cert.
  • State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    cert, denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct.