DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Armstrong, 101 N.W.2d 398.

49 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Wortman relies on State v. Armstrong, where the supreme court stated that “the corroborating evidence must, independent of the testimony of the accomplice, tend in some degree to establish the guilt of the accused.”
  • Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    And like the federal common law cited in DeseH Palace, Minnesota law “makes no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence as to the degree of proof required.” State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 312 , see also III.
  • State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
    Minnesota Statutes § 634.04 and the accompanying accomplice corroboration instruction requirement provide defendants greater protection than did the common law requirement that courts give "a cautionary instruction concerning the weight of [accomplice] testimony.” State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 307
  • State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    see also State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 309 , 101 N-.W.2d 398, 407 (1960) (concluding Minn. Stat. § 634.04 does not require state to produce corroborative evidence that by itself would be sufficient to sustain conviction).
  • State v. Ouk 516 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Ouk 516 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1994
    State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 308
  • State v. Williams 418 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Williams 418 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1988
    See State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 306-07
  • 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. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    see also State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 308-09 , -08 (1960).
  • Hanson v. State 344 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Hanson v. State 344 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In addition, “[circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice.” State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 308
  • In Re the Welfare of D.M.K. 343 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In Re the Welfare of D.M.K. 343 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    K.A.Z., ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
    State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295
  • In Re the Welfare of K. A. Z. 266 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1978
  • In Re the Welfare of K. A. Z. 266 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1978
    State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 307
  • State v. Duncan 250 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Duncan 250 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1977
    Furthermore, applying the standards set forth in State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 , and State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 , this court will, upon review of the evidence in the case of a claim that it was insufficient to support the verdict, take the most favorable view of the state’s testimony to which it is reasonably susceptible.
  • State v. Knaffla 243 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Knaffla 243 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1976
    State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295
  • State v. Coy 200 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Coy 200 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1972
    State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230 , State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295
  • Simberg v. State 179 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1970
  • Simberg v. State 179 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1970
    State v. Kohuth, 287 Minn. 520 , 176 N. W. (2d) 872 ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
    State v. Ellingson, supra; State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
    State v. Eliason, 279 Minn. 70 , 155 N. W. (2d) 465 ; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • State v. Ellingson 167 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Ellingson 167 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1969
    Furthermore, applying the standards set forth in State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261 , 24 N. W. (2d) 846 , and State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 , this court will, upon review of the evidence in the case of a claim that it was insufficient to support the verdict, take the most favorable view of the state’s testimony to which it is reasonably susceptible.
  • 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 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. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • State v. Taylor 133 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Taylor 133 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1965
    8 See, State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 ; State v. Rosenswieg, 168 Minn. 459 , ; State v. Pearson, 153 Minn. 32 , ; State v. Rue, 72 Minn. 296 , ; State v. Mims, 26 Minn. 183 , .
  • State v. Mathiasen 127 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Mathiasen 127 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
    14 State v. Rasmussen, supra; State v. Star, supra; State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398 .
  • State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Smith 119 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1962
    tute 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.” What corroborative evidence is required was recently stated in State v. Armstrong, 257 Minn. 295, 307 , 101 N. W. (2d) 398, 406 , as follows: “The reasons for requiring the testimony
  • State v. Guy 105 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1960
  • State v. Guy 105 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1960
    t. 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 .