Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rasmussen, 63 N.W.2d 1.

59 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
–52 (Minn. 2019); (explaining that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice).
St. Louis County Thissen, J. Took no part, Moore, J. State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
at 253 (); (stating that corroborating evidence is sufficient when it “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the tr uth of [the accomplice’ s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant”).
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
at 253-54 (quoting State v. Rasmussen , 241 Minn. 310 , , 3 (1954) ).
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Rasmussen , 241 Minn. 310 , , 3 (1954).
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
This burden is met when the defendant is linked to the alleged crime by corroborating evidence that “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the truth of [the accomplice’s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , accord Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , d at 786 ; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310
State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310
State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313
State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
The entire conduct of the accused may be looked to for corroborating circumstances, and if from those circumstances the connection of the accused with the crime may fairly be inferred, the corroboration is sufficient.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , (footnotes omitted)
State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 308 , (quoting State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , ).
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398 , State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , -4 (1954).
State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310
State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
10 State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310
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. Stave 158 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1968
State v. Stave 158 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1968
3 State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1, 3 ; State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5 , 144 N. W. (2d) 783, 786 .
State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
634.04 provides: “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” 4 See, State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
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 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. Mathiasen 127 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
State v. Mathiasen 127 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
ction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such oth'er evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, * * 4 § 634.04 concludes: “* * * [T]he corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” 5 State v. Hopfe, 249 Minn. 464 , 82 N. W. (2d) 681 ; State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 .
State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
(3 ed.) § 2457.'Evidence relating exclusively to the fact of the commission of the crime and the circumstances thereof, as distinct from defendant’s connection therewith, would not be sufficient.” See, State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1, 3 ; State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216 , .
State v. Anderson 113 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1962
State v. Anderson 113 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1962
1 State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 .
State v. Guy 105 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1960
State v. Guy 105 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1960
634.04 reads: “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” 2 See, State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
State v. Armstrong 101 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1960
In State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1, 3 , the court considered the corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony, stating: «* * * The rule is satisfied if the corroborative evidence in some substantial degree tends to affirm the truth of his testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant.
State v. McLaughlin 84 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1957
State v. McLaughlin 84 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1957
State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State v. Jackson, 198 Minn. 111 , ; State v. Star, 248 Minn. 571 , 81 N. W. (2d) 94 .
State v. Hopfe 82 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1957