Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pankratz, 57 N.W.2d 635.

39 citing documents.

  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Sheldon 391 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sheldon 391 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517, 531 , -44 (1953).
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517, the court stated: Where the evidence will justify a verdict of a lesser degree of the crime than is charged in the indictment, defendant may not demand as a matter of right that the court submit only the degree of the crime charged in the indictment.
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
    In State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , *313 (1953), and State v. Brady, 244 Minn. 455 , we approved jury instructions on circumstantial evidence that did contain the phrase in question, but we did not state that the phrase is necessary.
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
    State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517, 531
  • State v. Swanson 240 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Swanson 240 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1976
    State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414 , State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517
  • State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
    11 State v. Jordan, 272 Minn. 84 , State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517
  • State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
    State v. *422 Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , Beltowski v. State, 289 Minn. 215
  • State v. Slack 202 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Slack 202 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1972
    State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517, 538
  • State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
    6 See, State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517
  • State v. Morgan 188 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Morgan 188 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1971
    State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 ; State v. Nelson, 285 Minn. 304 , 173 N. W. (2d) 349 .
  • Beltowski v. State 183 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1971
  • Beltowski v. State 183 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1971
    State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 .
  • State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
    In State v. Pankrantz, 238 Minn. 517, 539 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635, 647 , the court said, “Where the evidence will justify a verdict of a lesser degree of the crime than is charged in the indictment, defendant may not demand as a matter of right that the court submit only the degree of the crime charged in the indictment.” *140 Defendant argues that the jury
  • State v. Gafner 168 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Gafner 168 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1969
    See comment to § 609.55.” State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 , cited by both the state and defendant, contains the following statement with respect to the submission of a lesser degree of the crime charged ( 238 Minn. 538 , 57 N. W. [2d] 647): “With respect to the submission of a lesser degree of the crime of which defendant is indicted, we believe that the
  • State v. Weber 137 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Weber 137 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1965
    See, State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 ; State v. Brady, 244 Minn. 455 , 70 N. W. (2d) 449 .
  • State v. Jordan 136 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Jordan 136 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1965
    A conviction or acquittal of a crime is a bar to further prosecution of any included crime, or other degree of the same crime.” 2 See, State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 , and cases cited.
  • State v. Kline 124 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Kline 124 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1963
    2 State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 ; State v. Lux, 235 Minn. 181 , 50 N. W. (2d) 290 ; State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , 48 N. W. (2d) 44 ; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 ; State v. Waddell, 187 Minn. 191 , .
  • State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
  • State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
    In State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517, 536 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635, 646 , this court said: “ * * The law makes no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence as to the degree of proof required for conviction, but respects each for such convincing force as it may carry and accepts each as a reasonable method of proof.
  • State v. Axilrod 79 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1956
  • State v. Axilrod 79 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1956
    As we said in State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 , 646: “* * * It was not necessary to give the law in the exact language of the request so long as the applicable law was correctly stated by the court in its charge.” Viewing the instructions in their "entirety, as we must, 13 we find that they adequately and fairly explained the law of the case.
  • State v. Brady 70 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1955
  • State v. Brady 70 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1955
    State v. Pankratz, 238 Minn. 517 , 57 N. W. (2d) 635 .