Hearsay

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the admission of confidential informant’s testimony violated hearsay rule?    

Defendant was convicted in Otter Tail County District Court of 1st degree controlled substance crime.  He appealed.  On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the substance of the confidential informant’s statements into evidence.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held, noting that the State used the content of the CI’s controlled phone calls as substantive evidence, that admission of the phone calls was plain error that prejudiced defendant.  Reversed and remanded.

State v. Rogahn, A20-0861, Otter Tail County.

Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

By |2021-05-06T23:03:35+00:00May 6th, 2021|Victories/Case Law Updates|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment