DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kotka, 152 N.W.2d 445.

57 citing documents.

  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
    We have defined what constitutes relevant physical evidence in two leading eases: Olek, 288 Minn. 235 , , and State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 341
  • State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249 , ; State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , , certiorari denied, 389 U.S. 1056 , 88 S.Ct.
  • Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 676 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Kowski 423 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Kowski 423 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    He points out that “a conviction upon circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained, against the presumption of innocence, unless the reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Edge 422 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Edge 422 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    citing State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The reasonable inferences which a jury could draw from the circumstances surrounding the killing are simply not “consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” (quoting State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    A conviction based upon circumstantial evidence will be upheld if the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” (quoting State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
    2d 233, 237 (Minn.1982), but where a conviction is based substantially upon circumstantial evidence, as here, the result will be sustained on appeal only when “the ‘reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.’ ” (quoting State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334, cert.
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
    A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence and will be upheld if the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” citing State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
    Accord State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
    In State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , cert.
  • State v. Roberts 350 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Roberts 350 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    A jury verdict on that element cannot be sustained unless the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Threinen 328 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Threinen 328 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1983
    A conviction based upon such evidence is sustained upon appeal when the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Lubenow 310 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Lubenow 310 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1981
    The relevance of physical evidence was determined in two cases, State v. Olek, 288 Minn. 235 , and State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , cert.
  • State v. Gibbons 305 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Gibbons 305 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1981
    We also recognize, however, that when circumstantial evidence is the basis of the state’s case, a conviction on such evidence can only be sustained when the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
    State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 342
  • State v. Jankowski 281 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Jankowski 281 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1979
    State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331
  • State v. Cobb 279 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Cobb 279 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1979
    See, also, State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , certiorari denied, 389 U.S. 1056 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jensen 242 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Jensen 242 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1976
    As to the first issue, we refer to State v. Thiel, 299 Minn. 179 , and State v. Kotka; 277 Minn. 331 , certiorari denied, 389 U. S. 1056 , 88 S. Ct. 806 , 19 L. ed. 2d 853 (1968).
  • State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
    State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , certiorari denied, 389 U. S. 1056 , 88 S. Ct. 806 , 19 L. ed. 2d 853 (1968).
  • State v. Loss 204 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Loss 204 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1973
    In State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , it was stated: “* * * [A] conviction upon circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained, against the presumption of innocence, unless the reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of h
  • State v. Coy 200 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Coy 200 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1972
    In State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , certiorari denied, 389 U. S. 1056 , 88 S. Ct. 806 , 19 L. ed. 2d 853 (1968), this court said that proof that defendant possessed the type of weapon or instrumentality with which the crime was committed is sufficient to make the weapon admissible.
  • State v. Bergland 187 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Bergland 187 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1971
    State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , 152 N. W. (2d) 445 , certiorari denied, 389 U. S. 1056 , 88 S. Ct. 806 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 853; State v. Doust, 285 Minn. 336 , 173 N. W. (2d) 337 ; State v. Nelson, 285 Minn. 304 , 173 N. W. (2d) 349 .
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
    State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249 , 141 N. W. (2d) 124 ; State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331 , 152 N. W. (2d) 445 , certiorari denied, 389 U. S. 1056 , 88 S. Ct. 806 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 853; State v. Huffstutler, 269 Minn. 153 , 130 N. W. (2d) 347 .
  • State v. Hall 176 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1970