State v. Riley

2 Citing cases

  1. Riley v. State

    No. A04-1915 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2005)

    This court reversed a part of the restitution award and affirmed on all other issues. State v. Riley, No. C6-98-1169 (Minn.App. April 13, 1999). In 2004, Riley petitioned the district court for postconviction relief.

  2. State v. Bakken

    604 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that prior statements were not consistent when the prior statement included discussions of a threat and the use of a knife, which would have escalated the degree of the appellant's offense

    The trial testimony and the prior statement need not be verbatim. See State v. Cox, No. C9-98-1568, 1999 WL 387280, at *2 (Minn.App. June 15, 1999) ("The testimony does not have to be exact in every detail in order to qualify as a prior consistent statement."); State v. Riley, No. C6-98-1169, 1999 WL 203775, at *3 (Minn.App. Apr. 13, 1999) ("minor discrepancies" did not prevent videotaped statement from being consistent with trial testimony); In re Welfare of K.A.S., 585 N.W.2d 71, 76 (Minn.App. 1998) (videotaped statement that was "reasonably consistent" with witness's trial testimony admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)). Here, the trial court found that the videotaped interview was consistent overall with T.S.'s trial testimony.