Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Soltau, 2 N.W.2d 155.

51 citing documents.

State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
We reach this conclusion notwithstanding State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20, 25 , which stated that "[i]t is not error to fail to give an unrequested cautionary instruction.” 7 .
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20, 26
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20
State v. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
State v. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
Cole v. State, 289 Minn. 503 , State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , State v. Quinn, 186 Minn. 242 , State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216
Cole v. State 183 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1971
Cole v. State 183 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1971
State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20, 26 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155, 159 ; State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174, 189 , 152 N. W. (2d) 67, 78 .
State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
State v. Jones, 277 Minn. 174 , 152 N. W. (2d) 67 (failure to instruct that testimony of accomplice needs corroboration); State v. Tellock, 273 Minn. 512 , 142 N. W. (2d) 64 ; State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 (failure to instruct that prior convictions can be used only to impeach a witness); State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 .
State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
State v. Jones 152 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1967
No request was made for such instruction and, while certainly it should have been given, we have held, in State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 , and State v. Guy, 259 Minn. 67 , 105 N. W. (2d) 892 , that failure to give such instruction in the absence of a request is not reversible error.
State v. Tellock 142 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1966
State v. Tellock 142 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1966
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 .
State Ex Rel. Ogg v. Tahash 140 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1966
State Ex Rel. Ogg v. Tahash 140 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1966
State v. Connelly, 249 Minn. 429 , 82 N. W. (2d) 489 ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Guy, 259 Minn. 67 , 105 N. W. (2d) 892 ; State v. McLaughlin, 250 Minn. 309 , 84 N. W. (2d) 664 .
State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
Our attention has been called to five decisions in which we have considered similar questions, namely, State v. Williams, 96 Minn. 351 , ; State v. Lilja, 155 Minn. 251 , ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , 41 N. W. (2d) 313 , 15 A. L. R. (2d) 1137; and Gruenhagen v. Brelje, 252 Minn. 203 , 89 N. W. (2d) 738 .
State v. Taylor 133 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1965
State v. Taylor 133 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1965
9 See, State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , 41 N. W. (2d) 313 , 15 A. L. R. (2d) 1137; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn 173, ; State v. Sailor, 130 Minn. 84 , ; State v. Newman, 127 Minn. 445 , .
State v. Markuson 113 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1962
State v. Markuson 113 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1962
3 State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Hankins, 193 Minn. 375 , ; State v. Brown, 41 Minn. 319 , .
State v. Martineau 101 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1960
State v. Martineau 101 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1960
The use of affidavits to show a conflict of interest in the trial of a criminal case finds support in State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 , and State v. Wesson, 249 Minn. 153 , 81 N. W. (2d) 625 .
State Ex Rel. Hammond v. County of Hennepin 99 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 1959
State Ex Rel. Hammond v. County of Hennepin 99 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 1959
1 State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Wesson, 249 Minn. 153 , 81 N. W. (2d) 625 .
State v. Wesson 81 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1957
State v. Wesson 81 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1957
State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Dingman, 177 Minn. 283 , .
Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , 41 N. W. (2d) 313 , 15 A. L. R. (2d) 1137; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; Oswald v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ry.
State v. Reardon 73 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1955
State v. Reardon 73 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1955
State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20, 28 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155, 160 ; State v. Heffelfinger, 200 Minn. 268, 271 , .
State v. Schifsky 69 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1955
State v. Schifsky 69 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1955
Co. 225 Minn. 373 , 31 N. W. (2d) 37 ; State v. Brodt, 150 Minn. 431 , ; State v. Broughton, 154 Minn. 390 , ; State v. McReady, 154 Minn. 366 , ; State v. Kraus, 175 Minn. 174 , ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Kruse, 137 Minn. 468 , ; Helmbrecht v. Helmbrecht, 31 Minn. 504 , ; State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , ; State ex rel.
State v. Rasmussen 63 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1954
State v. Rasmussen 63 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1954
12 State v. Finley, 214 Minn. 228 , 8 N. W. (2d) 217 ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Lemke, 207 Minn. 35 , ; State v. Eidsvold, 172 Minn. 208 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Shannon 51 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1952
State v. Shannon 51 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1952
We so held in State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 .
Flemming v. Thorson 43 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1950
Flemming v. Thorson 43 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1950
jectionable argument and request appropriate instructions to cure the error before the jury retires.” See, also, State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 .
State v. DeZeler 41 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1950
State v. DeZeler 41 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1950
State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
Loth v. Loth 35 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1949
Loth v. Loth 35 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1949
See, State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 .
Moran v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1948
Moran v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 31 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1948
This rule is expressed in State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20, 28 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155, 160 , wherein we stated:.
Ickler v. Hilger 10 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1943
Ickler v. Hilger 10 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1943
Co. 208 Minn. 240 , ; State v. Jansen, 207 Minn. 250 , ; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 .