Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McTague, 252 N.W. 446.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Flight before apprehension or after arrest and when on bail is a circumstance to be considered—not as a presumption of guilt, but as something for the jury—as suggestive of a consciousness of guilt; and the same is true of an attempt to escape or resisting arrest.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
In State v. McTague, we reiterated that the corpus delicti rule requires corroboration of both a fire and the criminal nature of the fire in arson cases, stating that “proof of the corpus delicti requires proof of the burning of the building and proof that the fire was criminally set.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
as suggestive of a consciousness of guilt.” (discussing McTague’s flight after arrest as relevant evidence supporting the jury’s verdict).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla 7 N.W.3d 585 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla 7 N.W.3d 585 Minn. 2024
F.3d 1028, 1043 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding that there was a sufficient nexus between the crime alleged (drug smuggling) and the place to be searched (the defendant’s Facebook 17 account) because the defendant called her cousin from jail shortly after her arrest and asked her cousin to delete content from her account); (stating that it is “universally” acknowledged that “an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct,
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom 6 N.W.3d 145 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom 6 N.W.3d 145 Minn. 2024
He also claims that this statement suggested that Westrom’s conduct after Childs’ death sufficiently proved his guilt, contrary to this court’s
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Evidence of “flight before arrest may be considered by the jury” because it is “suggestive of a consciousness of guilt.” State v. McTague
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[T]he fact of an accused’s .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he fact of an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. McTague , 190 Minn. 449, 453, 252 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449, 453-54, 252 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
-47 (Minn. 2010); State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449, 453-55, 252 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
We have held that a “[fjlight before apprehension” may be considered by the jury as “suggestive of a consciousness of guilt.” State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449, 453 , 252 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449, 453, 252 N.W.
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
190 Minn. 449, 453 , 252 N.W.
State v. Gress 84 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1957
State v. Gress 84 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1957
We appreciate that we have gone quite far in State v. Tsiolis, 202 Minn. 117 , , and State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449 , , in approving cross-examination of a defendant in a criminal case and permitting inquiry into his family history.
State v. McLaughlin 84 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1957
State v. McLaughlin 84 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1957
(3 ed.) § 2464; State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449 , .
State v. Kolander 52 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1952
State v. Kolander 52 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1952
State v. O’Hagan, 124 Minn. 58 , ; State v. Jacobson, 130 Minn. 347 , ; State v. McCauley, 132 Minn. 225 , ; State v. Burnstein, 158 Minn. 122 , ; State v. Tuomi, 167 Minn. 74 , ; State v. Fredeen, 167 Minn. 234 , ; State v. Rosenswieg, 168 Minn. 459 , ; State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449 , ; State v. Lytle, 214 Minn. 171 , 7 N. W. (2d) 305 .
State v. Clow 10 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1943
State v. Clow 10 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1943
We appreciate that we have gone quite far in State v. Tsiolis, 202 Minn. 117 , , and State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449 , , in approving cross-examination of a defendant in a criminal case and permitting inquiry into his family history.
State v. Palmer 288 N.W. 160 Minn. 1939
State v. Palmer 288 N.W. 160 Minn. 1939
The law as to the cross-examination of a defendant who takes the witness stand is well stated in State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449 , .
State v. Rowe 280 N.W. 646 Minn. 1938
State v. Rowe 280 N.W. 646 Minn. 1938
State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449 , .
State v. Tsiolis 277 N.W. 409 Minn. 1938
State v. Tsiolis 277 N.W. 409 Minn. 1938
In State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449, 455 , , we said: “The defendant testified in his own behalf.
State v. Barnett 258 N.W. 508 Minn. 1935
State v. Barnett 258 N.W. 508 Minn. 1935
(2 ed. & Supp. 1934) § 2464; State v. McTague, 390 Minn. 449 , .