State v. Stone
Minnesota Court of Appeals
767 N.W.2d 735 (2009)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
G.J.’s house was broken into. During the intrusion, G.J. identified one of perpetrators as Shane Stone (defendant). A few days later, G.J. identified the perpetrator as Stone from a photo lineup. At Stone’s trial, G.J. could not identify Stone in the courtroom. G.J. could remember certain things about the incident but had trouble remembering various details, such as details about what the perpetrator looked like. At this point, the prosecution (plaintiff) sought to introduce the audio recording of G.J.’s police interview in which he identified Stone. The trial court admitted the recording over Stone’s objection. Stone was convicted, and he appealed, arguing that G.J.’s memory was sufficient such that it did not invoke Minnesota Rule of Evidence 803(5) and that G.J. did not actually adopt the statement he made in the recording.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peterson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
