# State v. Caulfield

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · October 5, 2006 · 722 N.W.2d 304

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654406

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Scott CAULFIELD, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** October 5, 2006
- **Citations:** 722 N.W.2d 304; 2006 Minn. LEXIS 677; 2006 WL 2828676
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gildea
- **Judges:** Hanson, Anderson, Barry, Russell, Gildea
- **Cited by:** 94 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654406

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the supreme court has never held that the admission of “direct and persuasive evidence on an element of the crime” was harmless solely because “other less direct and less persuasive or largely circumstantial evidence is strong”
- holding that a similar Minnesota statute vio *669 lates the Confrontation Clause because it does not give the defendant adequate notice that failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement waives the right to confrontation
- holding that a similar Minnesota statute violates the Confrontation Clause because it does not give the defendant adequate notice that failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement waives the right to confrontation
- holding that a similar Minnesota statute vio lates the Confrontation Clause because it does not give the defendant adequate notice that failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement waives the right to confrontation

## Opinion text

GILDEA, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice G. Barry Anderson.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654406. Public record. Not legal advice.