State v. Iverson

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Falk

    88 B.R. 957 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1988)   Cited 7 times
    Cataloguing many approaches

    1982); Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 153 N.W.2d 199 (1967); Brunsoman v. Seltz, 414 N.W.2d 547 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), petition for review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988); Walden Bros. Lumber, Inc. v. Wiggin, 408 N.W.2d 675 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), petition for review denied (Minn. Aug. 19, 1987); State v. Iverson, 396 N.W.2d 599 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986), Petition for review denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1987); Roseberg v. Steen, 363 N.W.2d 102 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985). When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.

  2. State v. Irlas

    888 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    See, e.g. , State v. Ford , 539 N.W.2d 214, 227 (Minn. 1995)(declaring witness unavailability may be established by a witness invoking Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination); State v. Durante , 406 N.W.2d 80, 84 (Minn. App. 1987) ("Witnesses who invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege are unavailable for purposes of the confrontation clause."); State v. Iverson , 396 N.W.2d 599, 606 (Minn. App. 1986) (declaring witness unavailable because witness refused to testify), review denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1987); see also Douglas v. Alabama , 380 U.S. 415, 419โ€“20, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1077, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965) (holding that confrontation rights were violated when witness asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege and prosecutor, under the guise of cross-examination, read to jury witness's confession implicating defendant). However, Minnesota courts have not yet addressed the issue of whether the invocation of an invalid Fifth Amendment privilege, where the assertion of such privilege is not knowingly improper by the state's witness, makes the witness unavailable for cross-examination.

  3. State v. Townsend

    872 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    Considering whether a verdict of not guilty in the offenders' trial rendered Townsend's guilty plea to aiding an offender inaccurate

    The Minnesota Supreme Court stated that acquittal of a principal offender does not affect the conviction of a defendant charged with aiding and abetting the principal. State v. Cegon, 309 N.W.2d 313, 314 (Minn.1981); see also State v. Iverson, 396 N.W.2d 599, 603 (Minn.App.1986) (applying Cegon ), review denied (Minn. Jan. 18, 1987). The supreme court relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Standefer v. United States, in which the Court discussed the reasons why nonmutual collateral estoppel does not apply in criminal cases, citing differences between civil and criminal rules of evidence; the fact that the state cannot challenge an acquittal, despite clear evidence of guilt; and the rules of suppression that can be invoked by one defendant, but not by other parties to the crime.

  4. State v. Lewis

    No. A07-0921 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2008)

    See e.g., State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214, 227 (Minn. 1995) (declaring witness unavailability may be established by a witness invoking Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination); State v. Durante, 406 N.W.2d 80, 84 (Minn.App. 1987) ("Witnesses who invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege are unavailable for purposes of the confrontation clause."); State v. Iverson, 396 N.W.2d 599, 606 (Minn.App. 1986) (declaring witness unavailable because witness refused to testify), review denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1987); see also Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-420, 85 S. Ct. 1074, 1077 (1965) (holding that confrontation rights were violated when a witness asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege and the prosecutor, under the guise of cross-examination, read to the jury the witness's confession implicating the defendant). But Ewing did not successfully invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment and he did not simply refuse to testify.

  5. State v. Cole

    594 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that error harmless where victim's statements inadmissible under Minn.R.Evid. 803 but admissible under Minn. Stat. ยง 595.02, subd. 3

    See e.g., State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214, 227 (Minn. 1995) (declaring witness unavailability may be established by witness invoking Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination); State v. Iverson, 396 N.W.2d 599, 606 (Minn. App. 1986) (declaring witness unavailable because witness refused to testify), review denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1987). In all these examples, the witnesses are otherwise legally competent, but, for one reason or another, cannot be physically subpoenaed into a courtroom.