Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fredlund, 273 N.W. 353.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(acknowledging that double jeopardy is affirmative defense and considering whether appellant waived double-jeopardy claim by entering second guilty plea); (“Before [a] defendant may avail [themself] of the plea of former jeopardy it is of course necessary that [they] show that the present prosecution is for the identical act and that the crime both in law and fact were settled by the first prosecution.”).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
200 Minn. 44, 50 , 273 N.W.
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
7 See State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44, 50 , 273 N.W.
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
See, State v. Kopetka, 265 Minn. 371 , State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44 , State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296
State v. McDonald 215 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1974
State v. McDonald 215 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1974
State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44
Lupino v. State 171 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1969
Lupino v. State 171 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1969
The law in this jurisdiction is that— “* * * [bjefore defendant may avail himself of the plea of former jeopardy it is of course necessary that he show that the [second] prosecution [was] for the identical act and that the crime both in law and fact was settled by the first prosecution.” State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44, 48 , , 113 A. L. R. 215.
State Ex Rel. Boswell v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1967
State Ex Rel. Boswell v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1967
The theory of double jeopardy which prevailed in this state prior to the enactment of the Criminal Code of 1963 is expressed in State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44, 48 , , 113 A. L. R. 215, wherein this court stated: “In determining whether both indictments charge the same offense, the test generally applied is that when the facts necessary to convict on the second prosecution would necessarily have convicted on the first, a final judgment on the first prosecu
State v. Murphy 152 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1967
State v. Murphy 152 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1967
1 See, also, Comment by Maynard E. Pirsig, 40 M. S. A. 58; State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44 , ; State v. Robinson, 262 Minn. 79 , 114 N. W. (2d) 737 , certiorari denied, 371 U. S. 815 , 83 S. Ct. 26 , 9 L. ed. (2d) 56; 5A Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Miranda 416 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Johnson 141 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1966
State v. Johnson 141 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1966
While mentioning but according no significance to the statute, in State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44 , , 113 A. L. R. 215, we held that neither constitutional double jeopardy nor the included-offense statute barred separate prosecutions for the death of each of two persons resulting from the same automobile collision.
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
City of Bloomington v. Kossow 131 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1964
See, State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44 , , 113 A. L. R. 215; State v. Winger, 204 Minn. 164 , , 119 A. L. R. 1202; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 .
State v. Robinson 114 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1962
State v. Robinson 114 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1962
State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44, 47 , , 113 A. L. R. 215; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512 .
State v. Thompson 62 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1954
State v. Thompson 62 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1954
In State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn, 44, 48, , 113 A. L. R. 215, this court used the words identical act as synonymous with identical offense.
State v. Singleton 182 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1947
State v. Ivens 298 N.W. 50 Minn. 1941
State v. Ivens 298 N.W. 50 Minn. 1941
State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44 , , 113 A. L. R. 215; State v. Winger, 204 Minn. 164 , , 119 A. L. R. 1202.