Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fairbanksgreen2 sentences2016Spark-of-life evidence consists of biographical .testimony about the victim, including “a photograph of the victim before the injury occurred.” State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297, 305 (Minn. 2014). 2016Spark-of-life evidence consists of biographical testimony about the victim, including “a photograph of the victim before the injury occurred.” State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297, 305 (Minn. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Timothy Duane Arcoren v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1997See People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 72-75 , 573 N.Y.S.2d 965, 978-80 (NXApp.Div.1991) (ev- *678 idenee of domestic abuse was admissible to give credibility to wife’s testimony, where testimony without explanation of abusive situation would have been unbelievable); State v. Axford, 417 N.W.2d 88, 89-93 (Minn.1987) (admission of similar prior crimes against same victim by defendant’s son was admissible to explain why complaining witness delayed in reporting the sex abuse); Arcoren v. United States, 929 F.2d 1235, 1238-41 (8th Cir.1991) (expert testimony regarding domestic abuse was admissibl | 1 | 1 |
People v. Steinberggreen2 sentences1997See People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 72-75 , 573 N.Y.S.2d 965, 978-80 (NXApp.Div.1991) (ev- *678 idenee of domestic abuse was admissible to give credibility to wife’s testimony, where testimony without explanation of abusive situation would have been unbelievable); State v. Axford, 417 N.W.2d 88, 89-93 (Minn.1987) (admission of similar prior crimes against same victim by defendant’s son was admissible to explain why complaining witness delayed in reporting the sex abuse); Arcoren v. United States, 929 F.2d 1235, 1238-41 (8th Cir.1991) (expert testimony regarding domestic abuse was admissibl 1997See People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 72-75 , 573 N.Y.S.2d 965, 978-80 (NXApp.Div.1991) (ev- *678 idenee of domestic abuse was admissible to give credibility to wife’s testimony, where testimony without explanation of abusive situation would have been unbelievable); State v. Axford, 417 N.W.2d 88, 89-93 (Minn.1987) (admission of similar prior crimes against same victim by defendant’s son was admissible to explain why complaining witness delayed in reporting the sex abuse); Arcoren v. United States, 929 F.2d 1235, 1238-41 (8th Cir.1991) (expert testimony regarding domestic abuse was admissibl | 1 | 1 |
State v. Axfordgreen1 sentence1997See People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 72-75 , 573 N.Y.S.2d 965, 978-80 (NXApp.Div.1991) (ev- *678 idenee of domestic abuse was admissible to give credibility to wife’s testimony, where testimony without explanation of abusive situation would have been unbelievable); State v. Axford, 417 N.W.2d 88, 89-93 (Minn.1987) (admission of similar prior crimes against same victim by defendant’s son was admissible to explain why complaining witness delayed in reporting the sex abuse); Arcoren v. United States, 929 F.2d 1235, 1238-41 (8th Cir.1991) (expert testimony regarding domestic abuse was admissibl | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mechanikgreen2 sentences1990See United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 73 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 943 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (finding presence of unauthorized person in the grand jury in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(d) was harmless error in light of guilty verdict after a fair trial). 1990See United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 73 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 943 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (finding presence of unauthorized person in the grand jury in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(d) was harmless error in light of guilty verdict after a fair trial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Erdman
green
1 sentence1995Erdman, 422 N.W.2d at 513 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Marhoun
green
1 sentence1990In the pretrial appeal, Marhoun I, this court found: “Without detailing all the evidence adduced at the grand jury hearing, we agree with the ' district court that the evidence was sufficient to support the indictments.” Marhoun I, 323 N.W.2d at 731 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Olson
green
2 sentences1981Id. at 1358-60 . 1981Id. at 1358-60 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Donald Laverne Carlson, United States of America v. Gary Clarend Hofstad
green
1 sentence1980The state relies on United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir. 1976) in which the witness had testified at a grand jury hearing and then was intimidated by the defendant so that he refused to testify at trial. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Gardner
green
2 sentences1905In State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , 92 N. W. 529 , we held that a defendant in a criminal case should not be compelled to go before the grand jury in violation of the guaranty referred to, and give evidence either directly or indirectly against himself, or tending to affect his rights upon an indictment founded thereon. 1905In State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , 92 N. W. 529 , we held that a defendant in a criminal case should not be compelled to go before the grand jury in violation of the guaranty referred to, and give evidence either directly or indirectly against himself, or tending to affect his rights upon an indictment founded thereon. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.