Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Burns, 9 N.W.2d 518.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
not only tend to show a prior unlawful combination, but negative the idea of lawful undertaking or purpos e.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Proof of a formal agreement t o commit a crime is not required for a conspiracy conviction,” as long as the evidence “objectively indicates an agreement.” Hatfield, d at 376 (cit ing State v. Burns , 7 (concluding that “a conscious and intentional purpose to break the law is an essential ingredient of [a conspiracy]”)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellant points out that conspiracy is a separate, substantive crime from the uncharged assault, and that the elements of the assault need not be proved to establish a conspiracy, d 141, 146 ( Minn. App. 2003).
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Burns , 215 Minn. 182 , 189, , 522 (1943).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186, (requiring “common object” of conspiracy to commit the criminal offense that is the “object” of the conspiracy); (stating that agreement to conspire “must be shown by evidence that objectively indicates an agreement”).
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
.” State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If “several persons commit separate acts which form parts of a connected whole, an inference of conspiracy—that there was concert in both planning and execution—is permissible.” State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 189
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 (2014); (stating that the existence of a conspiracy does not require a formal agreement and may be inferred from the evidence); State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 189, (stating that a formal agreement is not required to establish a conspiracy and that conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence of a common purpose).
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
.A person cannot become a party to or criminally responsible for the criminal acts of another unless he knows their true character.” State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 188 , (citations omitted).
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Citing State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182 , the state argues that even though postal-service personnel had no knowledge of the conspiracy, a conspiracy agreement existed among appellant, Schwartz, Renecker, and Specht, because general agency principles and the doctrine of respondeat superior provide that a principal is liable for an agent
State v. Hatfield 639 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 2002
State v. Hatfield 639 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 2002
State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 189
State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
It is important in considering the case to bear in mind that (1) a conspiracy to commit a crime is a separate, substantive offense from the crime which is the object of the conspiracy; and (2) persons may combine to commit lawful acts [[Image here]] State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186 , (citations omitted).
State v. Pinkerton 628 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Pinkerton 628 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Kuhnau, d at 556 (quoting State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 188 , (criminal liability for conspiracy predicated upon personal guilt)).
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
(Minn.1988); State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186
In Re the Welfare of D.W.O. 594 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of D.W.O. 594 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186
State v. Watson 433 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Watson 433 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 189
Sisson v. Triplett 428 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1988
Sisson v. Triplett 428 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1988
State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182
State v. St. Christopher 232 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1975
State v. St. Christopher 232 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1975
The first of these cases is State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186 , where this court stated that “[t]o constitute a conspiracy to cheat and defraud, there must be not only a combination, but a common object to cheat and defraud, which each member of the combination intends shall be accomplished by the concerted action of all.” 2 The more recent Minne
State v. Bellecourt 152 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1967
State v. Bellecourt 152 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1967
5 See, State v. Townley, 149 Minn. 5 , , 17 A. L. R. 253, certiorari denied, 257 U. S. 643 , 42 S. Ct. 54 , 66 L. ed. 413; State v. Peterson, 213 Minn. 56 , 4 N. W. (2d) 826 ; State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182 , 9 N. W. (2d) 518 .
Pettit Grain & Potato Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 35 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1948
Pettit Grain & Potato Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 35 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1948
See, State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182 , 9 N. W. (2d) 518 , where we had occasion to point out the difference in the development of the doctrine of respondeat superior in civil and criminal cases.
Jewell v. Jewell 9 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1943
Jewell v. Jewell 9 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1943
If in the end there is a completed structure of fraudulent result the frame of which has been furnished piecemeal by several defendants, the parts when brought together shoAving adaptation to each other and the end accomplished, it is reasonable to draAV the inference of conspiracy and common intent to defraud.” Cf. State v. Cook, 215 Minn. 182 , 9 N. W. (2d) 518 , where the subject is discussed from the angle of criminal conspiracy.