Cited by

-16 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

17 -16 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001), to assert that a police officer may not testify to their belief that the defendant committed the charged offense.

Mother was engaged in a physical fight with her roommate that sent her child to the hospital; she was bloody and bruised; and she remained in an apartment that resembled a “murder scene.” (ruling that it was “reasonable to conclude that [the victim] was still under stress from the incident” three hours after an assault occurred given the extent of her injuries and the nature of the assault), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

See State v. Hogetvedt , -16 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

(quotation omitted); (“The lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of-court statement is not always determinative.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

(noting that a sergeant’s status as a police officer may have increased the risk of the jury being unduly influenced by his inadmissible testimony), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

tead, the sergeant affirmed that she used the photos from the surveillance video to “track th[e] person in the blue hat from when they got to the parking lot, went to [the nightclub], left [the nightclub], committed the shooting, and went back to the car.” Although “[c]ourts should be cautious about the influence of a law enforcement officer’s opinion on ultimate issues,” the district court here did not abuse its discretion.

(granting appellant new trial when victim 13 recanted prior statements of appellant’s guilt and officer ignored district court’s pretrial instruction by testifying to his belief that appellant was guilty, and that testimony prejudiced appellant

rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2003).

rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001) .

803(2) cmt.); (“The lapse of time between the startling event and the out -of-court statement is not always determinative.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

803(2) cmt.); (“The lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of- court statement is not always determinative.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

“The lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of-court statement is not always determinative.” rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

-16 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating that officer’s improper testimony may 5 unduly influence jury and require new trial), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

“The lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of-court statement is not always determinative.” rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

(stating that, “[g]iven [the officer]’s status as a police officer,” his opinion as to guilt “may have unduly influenced the jury”), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

See, (stating that, “[g]iven [the officer]’s status as a police officer,” his opinion as to guilt “may have unduly influenced the jury”), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

“The lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of-court statement is not always determinative.” review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

According to Smith, caselaw, DeWald, d at 744; review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001), prohibits such testimony.

harmless error the admission of evidence under an improper hearsay exception because the evidence was admissible under a different exception not mentioned by the district court); -44 (Minn. 1985) (affirming where a statement was inappropriately admitted under an impeachment exception but was admissible under the residual exception); -14 (Minn. App. 2001) (upholding the district court’s admission of out-of-court statements because, contrary to the district court’s ruling, the evidence was not hea

at 583; see also State v. Hogetvedt , (determining that an assa ult victim’s statement given to police at the hospital nearly three hours after the attack could fall under rule 801(d) 8 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence), review denied ( M i n n .

(explaining that, “[g]iven [the officer]’s status as a police officer,” his opinion as to guilt “may have unduly influenced the jury”), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

Jaros argues that the district court erred by failing to apply the Cox factors in this case, citing this court’s review denied ( Mi nn.

State v. Hogetvedt , review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

Appellant cites to State v. Hogetvedt , -16 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001), to support his claim that a n officer’s testimony may unduly influence a jury and require a new trial.

review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001), to argue that the state failed to ensure that L.H.

Moreover, “[t]he state has a duty to prepare its witnesses, prior to testifying, to avoid inadmissible or prejudicial statements.” d 228, 232 (Minn. App. 2003) (), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003); see also State v. Hogetvedt , (“The state has a duty to ensure that its witnesses know the limits of permissible testimony.”), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

udicial but inadvertent testimony has deprived a defendant of the right to a fair trial, the relevant factors this court considers include: “the nature and source of the prejudicial matter, the number of jurors exposed to the influence, the weight of evidence properly before the jury, and the likelihood that curative measures were effective in 6 reducing the prejudice.” (), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

The factors used to determine if a “statement qualifies as an excited utterance include the length of time elapsed, the nature of the event, the physical condition of the declarant, and any possible motive to falsify.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

The relevant factors used to determine if a “statement qualifies as an excited utterance include the length of time elapsed, the nature of the event, the physical condition of the declarant, and any possible motive to falsify.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

(stating that, “[g]iven [the officer]’s status as a police officer,” his opinion as to guilt “may have unduly influenced the jury”), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

(stating that, “[g]iven [the officer]’s status as a police officer,” his opinion as to guilt “may have unduly influenced the jury”), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001).

(permitting victim’s statements as excited utterances three hours after assault because it was “reasonable to conclude that [the victim] was still under stress from the incident” at that time), review denied (Minn. May 29, 2001); see also Daniels, d at 783 (stating that the “[l]apse