§

State v. Danforth

573 N.W.2d 369 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
State v. Danforth

23 Citing cases

  1. Danforth v. Crist

    624 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that a "new" rule could not be applied retroactively because it did not satisfy the Teague exceptions, and then determining whether the state court's adjudication unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in existence at the time the state court rendered its decision

    Stephen Danforth was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a six-year-old boy, J.S. The facts of this case are set forth at length in State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 372 (Minn.Ct. App. 1997), and are repeated herein only to the extent they are relevant. The trial court found J.S. incompetent to testify at tidal, but admitted into evidence a videotaped interview of J.S. conducted at a child advocacy center, finding the videotape bore sufficient indicia of reliability in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 595.02, subdivision 3 (1994).

  2. Danforth v. State

    No. C6-00-699 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2000)   Cited 6 times

    This court upheld Danforth's conviction but reversed his sentence and remanded for resentencing after concluding the district court erred by not sentencing Danforth as a patterned sex offender. State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998).

  3. Danforth v. Crist

    Civil No. 01-2137 (JRT/RLE) (D. Minn. Aug. 26, 2005)

    "[T]he district court thoughtfully opined that J.S. had an ability to know and remember the truth, but that J.S. was not capable of paying attention long enough to communicate meaningfully to the jury in a trial setting." State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 376 (Minn.Ct.App. 1997). Applying the Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), standard, the trial judge determined that the recorded CornerHouse interview demonstrated sufficient indicia of reliability to admit the videotape at trial.

  4. Danforth v. State

    718 N.W.2d 451 (Minn. 2006)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that new rule in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, is procedural

    On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed Danforth's conviction but remanded for resentencing. State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Minn.App. 1997) ( Danforth I), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998).

  5. State v. Grossman

    622 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that because determinations whether a defendant is a "patterned sex offender" as well as a "danger to public safety" increases maximum sentence, they must be made by a jury in accordance with Apprendi

    All three prongs of subdivision 1(a) must be met before a defendant can be sentenced as a patterned sex offender. See Christie, 506 N.W.2d at 298 (discussing earlier version of patterned sex-offender statute that did not increase statutory maximum sentence); State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 377 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998).

  6. State v. Danforth

    No. C5-98-2054 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 4, 1999)   Cited 6 times

    On appeal, this court directed the district court to follow the sentencing scheme in the patterned sex offender statute. See State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 377 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 609.1352).

  7. State v. Israel

    No. C9-98-257 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 1998)

    In addition, the specific methods for interviewing child victims of sexual abuse that were followed in this case have been accepted as particularly reliable by this court in the past. See Statev. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 375 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998).

  8. Danforth v. Minnesota

    552 U.S. 264 (2008)   Cited 526 times
    Holding that Teague does not “constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion”

    Applying the rule of admissibility set forth in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the tape “was sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence,” and affirmed the conviction. State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 375 (1997). The conviction became final in 1998 when the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review and petitioner's time for filing a writ of certiorari elapsed.

  9. Danforth v. State

    761 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 2009)   Cited 52 times
    Adopting Teague 's formulation on remand from the Supreme Court's decision in Danforth v. Minnesota, and explaining that many states have adopted Teague “primarily based on the important policy interest in finality,” or because they “valued uniformity between state and federal rules”

    The facts of this case are set forth at length in a decision by the court of appeals. State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 372 (Minn.App. 1997), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1998).

  10. Danforth v. Roy

    A12-0615 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    A jury found appellant Stephen Danforth guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and, on May 13, 1996, the district court sentenced him to 216 months' imprisonment. On August 4, 1998, after remand from this court in State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369, 378 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Dec. 16, 1997), the district court resentenced Danforth to 316 months' imprisonment with a release date of April 4, 2014, and a ten-year supervised-release term.