Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Azzone, 135 N.W.2d 488.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court has noted that “the rationale” for section 634.04 “is that the credibility of an accomplice is inherently untrustworthy.” d 488, 493 (Minn. 1965) (stating that one object of section 634.04 “is to provide a check upon the credibility of testimony of a person who, having been admittedly involved in criminal conduct, might be disposed to shift or diffuse responsibility”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
We have generally explained that the statute serves two functions: “[I]t discourages coercively acquired confessions and requires that admissions and confessions from defendants are reliable.” Heiges, d at 10; see also M.D.S., d at 735 (describing the purposes of Minn. Stat. § 634.03); (same).
Respondent, vs. Minn. 2021
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
M.D.S., d at 735 ; State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 170-71
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(citing State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 170 , ).
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 170
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. LaJambe, 300 Minn. 539, 541 , see State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 170 , (“The object of [Minn.Stat.
State v. Brant 436 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Brant 436 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(citing State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166 , ).
State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
We are also mindful, however, that the objective of Minn. Stat. § 634.04 is to guard against convictions based solely on accomplice testimony which might have been given to “shift or diffuse responsibility in order to curry the favor of law enforcement officials.” State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 170
Matter of Welfare of M.D.S. 345 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1984
Matter of Welfare of M.D.S. 345 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1984
State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166
Duetsch v. E. L. Murphy Trucking Co. 239 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 1976
Distinguished Duetsch v. E. L. Murphy Trucking Co. 239 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 1976
We can only say that each case must be determined on its own facts, and where as here it cannot be said that the lease is merely an arrangement to conceal the true nature of the relationship between the parties, we must affirm.” 271 Minn. 138 , .
State v. Petersen 235 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1975
State v. Petersen 235 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1975
In State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166 , we declined to consider the question whether a state sentence imposed after the imposition of a Federal sentence should run concurrently with the state sentence or consecutively because the appellant there had not yet served the minimum period of time required under the sentence of the distr
State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash 141 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1965
State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash 141 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1965
36 In State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 172 , 135 N. W. (2d) 488, 494 , we said: “Where claims of constitutional infringement are involved, this court * ** * will disregard time limitations when this can be done without prejudice to the public interest in orderly criminal procedure.” (Italics supplied.)

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by