Supreme Court of Minnesota· 8/11/2005

State v. Wright

Citations

701 N.W.2d 802
2005 Minn. LEXIS 472
2005 WL 1903860

How courts have described this case

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

holding that statements made for the purpose of seeking police intervention nontestimonial; victims, not police, initiated the encounter, and the victims remained emotionally distraught throughout the entire conversation
holding that \statements made to the police during a field investigation should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis\ and establishing an eight-factor test that includes consideration of the purpose of both the declarant and the officer
holding that “statements made to the police during a field investigation should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis” and establishing an eight-factor test that includes consideration of the purpose of both the declarant and the officer
discussing forfeiture of the right of confrontation by procuring the unavailability of a witness
discussing forfeiture of the right of confrontation by procuring the unavailability of a witness
“A forfeiture ⅝ * * analysis was unnecessary at the time of Wright’s trial because the Supreme Court had not yet issued its decision in Crawford.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.