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. Daniels, 380 N.W.2d 777.

88 citing documents.

  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
    e,” although hearsay, admisadmis-sible if it “relat[es] to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” The rationale for this exception “stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the elimielimi-nates the possibility of fabricafabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” [20] The testimony of Ms. Bauer’s brother concerning the 1995 threat falls within the “excited utterance” exception.
  • State v. Christopherson 500 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Christopherson 500 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    (witnesses other than declarants allowed to testify at trial about declarants’ prior statements under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule); (videotape interview admissible to rebut charge of recent fabrication under former version of Minn
  • State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Edwards 485 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1992
    803(2) Advisory Committee comment (1977)
  • State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Roby 463 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1990
    39 , 17 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); Minn.R.Evid.
  • State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Lanam 459 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1990
    f the statute, an examination of the “time, content, and circumstances of the statement and the reliability of the person to whom the statement is made.” -50 (Minn.1988) (holding hearsay statement of incompetent child admissible because it was reliable as determined by trial court looking at circumstances under which statement was made); (admitting excited utterances by young children despite their having been ruled incompetent to testify); State v. Gorman, 229 Minn. 524, 526-27 , -49 (1949) (up
  • State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Wilbur 445 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Wilbur 445 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Mathews 425 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Mathews 425 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    909 , 93 L.Ed.2d 859 (1987)
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)
  • State v. Conklin 406 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Conklin 406 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    909 , 93 L.Ed.2d 859 (1987)
  • State v. Roberts 393 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Roberts 393 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Gomez 392 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Gomez 392 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Frandsen 391 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Frandsen 391 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stafford 385 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stafford 385 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1986