State v. Lasnetski
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction of first-degree assault, arguing that the district court erred in admitting testimonial hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Appellant also argues that the district court ' improperly excluded character evidence and that he was deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Because we conclude that admission of the testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause and objection'to the testimony was otherwisé waived by appellant, and that the district court did…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- United States v. MezzanattoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- State v. PostSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. AmosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- State v. BlomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. AhmedCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006