Supreme Court of Minnesota· 7/20/2000
State v. Martin
Citations
- 614 N.W.2d 214
- 2000 Minn. LEXIS 398
- 2000 WL 994324
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that the district court acted within its discretion by determining that a statement did not qualify as an excited utterance when the statement was given “many hours after the startling event” and there was no evidence of excitement
- stating that an appellant is not entitled to a Schwartz hearing on the basis of wholly speculative allegations of misconduct without more
- affirming denial of defendant’s motion for a Schwartz hearing where the proffered evidence required testimony about jury deliberations
- “The witness must be given a prior opportunity to admit, deny or explain the inconsistency in order for the statement to be admissible to impeach the witness.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gilbert
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2002-08-30· cited 115×
- State v. CarridineSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2012-05-09· cited 103×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2012-09-19· cited 76×
- State v. ReinersSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-07-10· cited 52×
- State v. GomezSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2006-09-28· cited 50×
- State v. SchulzSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2005-02-03· cited 50×
- Angus v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2005-04-28· cited 43×
- State v. McDonoughSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2001-08-02· cited 43×
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2004-08-06· cited 38×
- State v. MouaSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2004-04-22· cited 34×
- State v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2009-04-23· cited 32×
- Boitnott v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2001-07-26· cited 23×
- Doppler v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-05-15· cited 16×
- State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka OnyelobiSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2016-05-18· cited 12×
- State v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-09-29· cited 11×
- Boitnott v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2002-03-21· cited 9×
- In Re the Welfare of D.D.R.Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2006-05-16· cited 9×
- State v. UseeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2011-06-20· cited 9×
- State v. ReinersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2002-05-21· cited 6×
- State v. PirsigCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2003-10-28· cited 5×
Cites
25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-04-30· cited 16,401×
- Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1991-05-28· cited 4,168×
- Purkett v. ElemSupreme Court· 1995-05-15· cited 3,008×
- Wild v. RarigSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1975-01-10· cited 270×
- Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1960-07-01· cited 120×
- State v. BauerSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-07-29· cited 92×
- State v. RichardsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-12-31· cited 86×
- State v. NunnSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1997-04-10· cited 71×
- State v. GreenleafSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-04-15· cited 70×
- State v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1979-05-25· cited 66×
- State v. McRaeSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-12-24· cited 65×
- State v. VanceSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1977-05-06· cited 63×
- State v. HoskinsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1972-01-07· cited 62×
- State v. DeVerneySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-04-15· cited 40×
- State v. ScottSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-12-11· cited 35×
- State v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-06-05· cited 34×
- State v. ShoenSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1998-05-07· cited 29×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1998-10-22· cited 24×
- State v. MingsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1980-02-15· cited 18×
- State v. ChurchSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1998-04-23· cited 17×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.