Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Whiteside, 400 N.W.2d 140.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Determinations regarding hearsay evidence are largely within the discretion of the [district] court.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[T]he third Ortlepp factor may be satisfied even when a declarant’s statement is not against the declarant’s penal interest if the declarant is hostile to the state and supportive of the defendant.” ( rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dontae Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alton Holloway Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(concluding statement by defendant’s girlfriend implicating defendant was against her penal interests), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (concluding statement by defendant’s girlfriend implicating defendant was against her penal interests), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. JaJuan Anthony Reed, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Determinations regarding hearsay evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that a statement was trustworthy under the residual hearsay exception because the statement was made against the declarant’s interest based on her hostility towards the prosecution), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a statement of defendant’s girlfriend that incriminated defendant where the girlfriend was clearly hostile to the prosecution and her statements were made against the interest of her relationship with the defendant
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(admitting out-of-court statement of defendant’s girlfriend incriminating defendant, although girlfriend was uncooperative at trial), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, (con-eluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting under Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting under Minn. R. *177 Evid.
Rife v. One 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier, Minnesota License No. 509-CRC, Vin No. 1G1JE111OHJ112508 485 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Rife v. One 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier, Minnesota License No. 509-CRC, Vin No. 1G1JE111OHJ112508 485 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
This court has stated that “ ‘[determinations regarding hearsay evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court.’ ” pet.
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Because “the key issue in determining whether hearsay testimony is admissible under Rule 803(24) is the hearsay’s trustworthiness,” pet.
State v. Skjefte 428 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Skjefte 428 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Potter v. State 410 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Potter v. State 410 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1987

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by