State v. Lee

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Grunig

    No. A09-1123 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 25, 2010)

    Id. at 856. And in State v. Lee, 266 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1978), the supreme court affirmed the admission of evidence that two eyewitnesses identified the defendant while reviewing more than 1,000 photographs. The court reasoned that "[i]f the state had not been permitted to show the manner in which defendant was originally identified, it is quite possible that the jury would not have credited the identification testimony."

  2. State v. Seefeldt

    292 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 1980)   Cited 29 times
    Concluding that the jury could infer the nature of the weapon from the evidence presented

    Minn.R.Evid. 403. In State v. Lee, 266 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1978), the defendant claimed, among other things, that the prosecutor had improperly informed the jury in his opening statement that the state's key witness had picked defendant's photograph from about 1,000 pictures and later introduced evidence to that effect. In holding that this was not error, this court stated as follows:

  3. State v. Schaeffer

    452 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Fenney, 448 N.W.2d 54, 61 (Minn. 1989); see also State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1141, 106 S.Ct. 2248, 90 L.Ed.2d 694 (1986); State v. Saxton, 331 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Minn. 1983); State v. Michaeloff, 324 N.W.2d 926, 927 (Minn. 1982); State v. Lee, 266 N.W.2d 181, 182 (Minn. 1978); State v. Wakefield, 263 N.W.2d 76, 77 (Minn. 1978); State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 525, 253 N.W.2d 378, 385 (1977); State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401, 407, 246 N.W.2d 12, 15 (1976); State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1, 12-13, 142 N.W.2d 573, 580 (1966); State v. Torkelson, 404 N.W.2d 352, 357 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. June 25, 1987); State v. Litzau, 377 N.W.2d 53, 54-56 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985); State v. Sullivan, 360 N.W.2d 418, 422 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn.

  4. State v. Hyvare

    354 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1984)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution normally requires that the defendant's attorney be present at lineups, but that this right does not attach until the defendant has been formally charged

    Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); State v. Cobb, 279 N.W.2d 832 (Minn. 1979); State v. Lee, 266 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1978); State v. Oksanen, 311 Minn. 553, 249 N.W.2d 464 (1977). (b) If a lineup is held in violation of a defendant's right to due process — that is, if it creates a "very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification" — then the lineup identification evidence as well as the in-court identification testimony of the eyewitnesses must be suppressed. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); State v. Cobb, 279 N.W.2d 832 (Minn.

  5. State v. Corbett

    A14-0290 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2014)

    2001) (quoting this language with approval). On appeal, Corbett's only argument is that identification testimony of Turnage and Redmon is not credible, citing Justice Wahl's concurring opinion in State v. Lee, 266 N.W.2d 181, 182 (Minn. 1978) (Wahl, J., concurring), for the proposition that "where the only evidence connecting the defendant to the crime is the eyewitness identification testimony, [the case] must be carefully scrutinized." Corbett argues that social science studies have shown that eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the United States, citing H. Patrick Furman, WrongfulConvictions and the Accuracy of the Criminal Justice System, Colo. Law., Sept. 2003, at 14.

  6. State v. Sutherlin

    393 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 4 times

    The only evidence in this case connecting defendant to the crime * * * was the eyewitness identification testimony. If the state had not been permitted to show the manner in which the defendant was originally identified, it is quite possible that the jury would not have credited the identification testimony.Id. at 561 (quoting State v. Lee, 266 N.W.2d 181, 182 (Minn. 1978)). Where, as here, police identification marks are eliminated from the photos and if the jury is not informed of the arrest connection, courts are not predisposed to find a tainted jury trial.

  7. State v. Craig

    359 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    "If the state had not been permitted to show the manner in which defendant was originally identified, it is quite possible that the jury would not have credited the identification testimony." State v. Lee, 266 N.W.2d 181, 182 (Minn. 1978). Under the circumstances, we conclude the trial court did not err in admitting the photograph. III