State v. Hogetvedt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating 16 that, “[g]iven [the officer]’s status as a police officer,” his opinion as to guilt “may have unduly influenced the jury”
• reversing conviction where an officer, who did not witness the offense, testified that accused “assaulted” the victim
• 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
• 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
• “The lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of-court statement is not always determinative.”
• “In this case, [the victim’s] statements to her daughter and to [the police officer] identified appellant as her assailant and described the event soon after the assault occurred. These statements are not hearsay.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).