Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smith, 175 N.W. 689.

50 citing documents.

State v. Henderson 394 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Henderson 394 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Minn. Stat. § 634.04 ; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348, 354 , 175 N.W.
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
State v. McLaughlin, 250 Minn. 309, 319 , State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348, 355 , 175 N.W.
State v. McGlynn 195 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1972
State v. McGlynn 195 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1972
State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348, 354 , 175 N.W.
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
t crimes, the participants guilty of one crime are not accomplices of those who are guilty of a separate and distinct crime.” So tested, a person who feloniously receives stolen goods is not an accomplice of the thief, State v. Kosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , ; and an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice, State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N. W. (2d) 604 , and State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Matousek 178 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1970
State v. Matousek 178 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1970
State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
boration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” What corroborative evidence is required was recently stated in State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 307 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398, 406 , as follows: “The reasons for requiring the testimony of an accomplice to be bolstered by corroborating testimony have been stated by this court in State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , , and State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. Ill, .
State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” The reasons for requiring the testimony of an accomplice to be bolstered by corroborating testimony have been stated by this court in State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , , and State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111 , .
State v. Sandefur 82 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1957
State v. Sandefur 82 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1957
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State v. Scott, 203 Minn. 56 , ; State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111 , ; State v. Korsch, 168 Minn. 354 , ; State v. Baker, 161 Minn. 1 , ; State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Rasmussen 63 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1954
State v. Rasmussen 63 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1954
3 State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , ; State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111 , ; State v. Scott, 203 Minn. 56 , .
State v. Tennyson 2 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1942
State v. Tennyson 2 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1942
State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450 , , 73 A. L. R. 380; State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , ; State v. Gesell, 137 Minn. 43 , .
State v. Soltau 2 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1942
State v. Soltau 2 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1942
State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Elsberg 295 N.W. 913 Minn. 1941
State v. Elsberg 295 N.W. 913 Minn. 1941
State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348, 352 , .
State v. Panetti 280 N.W. 181 Minn. 1938
State v. Panetti 280 N.W. 181 Minn. 1938
State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216 , ; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , 175 N. W. *154 689.
State v. Scott 279 N.W. 832 Minn. 1938
State v. Scott 279 N.W. 832 Minn. 1938
State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , ; State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111 , .
State v. Jackson 268 N.W. 924 Minn. 1936
State v. Jackson 268 N.W. 924 Minn. 1936
State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Binder 251 N.W. 665 Minn. 1933
State v. Binder 251 N.W. 665 Minn. 1933
State v. Evans, 88 Minn. 262 , *312 268, ; State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308, 317 , ; State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348, 356 , .
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
897; State v. Price, 135 Minn. 159 , ; State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Korsch 210 N.W. 10 Minn. 1926
State v. Korsch 210 N.W. 10 Minn. 1926
Thus in State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348, 354 , , 692: “It is not necessary that the corroborative evidence should be sufficient, standing alone, to warrant a conviction.
State v. Ryan 194 N.W. 396 Minn. 1923
State v. Ryan 194 N.W. 396 Minn. 1923
State v. Thaden, 43 Minn. 253 , ; State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308 , ; State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Smith 190 N.W. 48 Minn. 1922
State v. Smith 190 N.W. 48 Minn. 1922
We think that the evidence tending to show that defendant and Mrs. Craighead were acting in concert in furtherance of a common purpose to induce Tatro to give the false testimony, was sufficient to make this evidence admissible under the rule applied in State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308 , ; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , , and other cases.
State v. Dahl 186 N.W. 580 Minn. 1922
State v. Dahl 186 N.W. 580 Minn. 1922
897; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Pugliese 182 N.W. 958 Minn. 1921
State v. Pugliese 182 N.W. 958 Minn. 1921
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , ; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; 8 R. C. L. 197.
State v. Morris 182 N.W. 721 Minn. 1921
State v. Morris 182 N.W. 721 Minn. 1921
§ 2457; State v. Christianson, 131 Minn. 276 , ; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , .
State v. Townley 182 N.W. 773 Minn. 1921
State v. Townley 182 N.W. 773 Minn. 1921
State v. Thaden, 43 Minn. 253 , ; State v. Palmer, 79 Minn. 428 , ; State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308 , ; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , ; Hyde v. U. S. 225 U. S. 347 , 32 Sup.
State v. Ettenberg 176 N.W. 171 Minn. 1920
State v. Ettenberg 176 N.W. 171 Minn. 1920
and 1916 Supp. § 2459; State v. Smith, 144 Minn. 348 , .