State v. Zaccardi

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hamilton

    289 N.W.2d 470 (Minn. 1979)   Cited 32 times
    Holding evidence sufficient to sustain guilty verdicts despite minor inconsistencies in state's case and relative inconclusiveness of supporting evidence

    " Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). In this case, the trial judge struck a fair and appropriate balance between the rights of confrontation and presenting a defense protected by the Sixth Amendment and the policy expressed in State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 159 N.W.2d 108 (1968), and implicit in Minn.Stat. § 609.347 (1978), of protecting the complaining witness from perhaps irrelevant and unnecessary "besmirching of her character for chastity * * *." 280 Minn. 295, 159 N.W.2d 110. In State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 295, 159 N.W.2d 108, 110 (1968), a rape prosecution, during the cross-examination of the complainant the trial court sustained the state's objection to defense counsel's question concerning her prior chastity, and the defendant did not pursue the matter or make an offer of proof with respect to the issue of chastity.

  2. State v. Warford

    293 Minn. 339 (Minn. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    For these reasons we find the verdict to be clearly supported by the evidence. See, State v. Artez, 286 Minn. 545, 176 N.W.2d 81 (1970); State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73, 160 N.W.2d 577 (1968); State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 159 N.W.2d 108 (1968); State v. Brown, 278 Minn. 186, 153 N.W.2d 229 (1967). 2.

  3. State v. Heiges

    806 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2011)   Cited 46 times
    Finding adequate corroborating evidence of the defendant's statements that she had been pregnant; she had tried to end her pregnancy; she planned to kill the baby after delivery; she delivered the baby in the bathtub; the baby's father threatened to hurt her, as he had in the past, if she did not drown the baby; she drowned the baby, put its body in a shoebox, and threw the shoebox down the apartment garbage chute; and, when she was later in a despondent state, she cut her wrists in the bathtub

    ); State v. Scott, 493 N.W.2d 546, 547 (Minn.1992) (“[T]he admission of evidence of his separately-tried and nontestifying codefendant's extrajudicial confession to a mutual acquaintance in defendant's presence that defendant and he killed Yungk violated defendant's sixth amendment right of confrontation.” (emphasis added)); State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 294, 159 N.W.2d 108, 109–10 (1968) (characterizing statements made by the defendant to coworkers before the police investigation commenced as confessions). In State v. Koskela, 536 N.W.2d at 629, the defendant claimed the State presented insufficient evidence on the intent element of a burglary charge because the only evidence that he entered the apartment to rob the victim was his uncorroborated confessions to his acquaintances.

  4. State v. Iaukea

    616 P.2d 219 (Haw. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, courts have recognized that even where evidence of past sexual behavior might be otherwise probative of consent, strong evidence of force destroys the issue of consent sufficiently to render evidence of the complaining witness' sexual behavior irrelevant. McClean v. United States, 377 A.2d 74 (D.C. App. 1977); State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 159 N.W.2d 108 (1968); State v. Geer, 13 Wn. App. 71, 533 P.2d 389 (1975). In the present case, the complainant testified that she was violently struck by the defendant when she resisted his unwanted sexual advances.

  5. State v. Hill

    309 Minn. 206 (Minn. 1976)   Cited 13 times
    In Hill we held that the trial court did not err in refusing to permit cross-examination of the complainant concerning two prior isolated incidents of cohabitation because the proffered evidence did not have sufficient probative value in the context of that case to permit its introduction on the issue of whether she consented to sexual relations.

    In State v. Wulff, 194 Minn. 271, 274, 260 N.W. 515, 516 (1935), we adopted the rule that evidence of particular acts as well as evidence of general reputation is admissible to prove unchastity as it bears on the question of consent. In a more recent case, State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 159 N.W.2d 108 (1968), we held that the evidence of unchastity was not a proper subject of cross-examination but, if admissible at all, was a part of defendant's case in chief. Subsequently, in State v. Warford, 293 Minn. 339, 200 N.W.2d 301 (1973), we suggested in a footnote that there may be circumstances where such evidence is not admissible even as a part of defendant's case.

  6. State v. Anderson

    394 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    In Anderson the defendant was convicted of multiple acts of sexual abuse of his cousin between 1977 and 1984. The court of appeals granted the defendant a new trial because he may have been convicted on the basis of conduct that occurred before the defendant turned 14 in 1980, i.e., before he was legally capable of committing a crime.

    State v. Hamilton, 289 N.W.2d 470, 475 (Minn. 1979) (quoting State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 295, 159 N.W.2d 108, 110 (1968)). We conclude that the trial court's utilization of Rule 403 was appropriate.