Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Edwards, 130 N.W.2d 623.

24 citing documents.

Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
See, e.g., State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 350
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 350
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
See State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 348 , (citations omitted).
State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 350
State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
y result on “only one of the charges.” “The jury could have been led to understand,” appellant argues, “that the Court was of the opinion that the accused was guilty of some offense, thus, resulting in prejudice and the denial of a fair and impartial trial.” When reviewing jury instructions, a reviewing court must “assume that the jurors were intelligent and practical people * * State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 350
State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
In support of his primary, due-process argument, defendant cites State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343 , where a statutory presumption of specific intent was held unconstitutional as a denial of due process.
State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
Geiselhart v. Tahash, 274 Minn. 464 , State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343 , State v. Higgen, 257 Minn. 46
State v. Siirila 193 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1971
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
Defendant asserts that this court has outlawed a presumption of intent to use tools burglariously from their mere possession, citing State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343 , 130 N. W. (2d) 623 .
Twin City Candy and Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co. 149 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1967
Twin City Candy and Tobacco Co. v. A. Weisman Co. 149 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1967
Geiselhart v. Tahash, 274 Minn. 464 , 144 N. W. (2d) 354 ; State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 348 , 130 N. W. (2d) 623, 626 ; State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247 , 15 N. W. (2d) 554 , 162 A. L. R. 477; United States v. Romano, 382 U. S. 136 , 86 S. Ct. 279 , 15 L. ed. (2d) 210; Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 469 , 63 S. Ct. 1241, 1245 , 87 L. ed. 1519, 1525; Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Ervin (D. Minn.) 23 F.
State Ex Rel. Riendeau v. Tahash 148 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1967
State Ex Rel. Riendeau v. Tahash 148 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1967
See, also, State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 348 , 130 N. W. (2d) 623, 626 ; State v. McCarthy, 259 Minn. 24, 29 , 104 N. W. (2d) 673, 677 , 87 A. L. R. (2d) 360, 366; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Geiselhart v. Tahash 144 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1966
State Ex Rel. Geiselhart v. Tahash 144 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1966
* * * “Clearly, where the charge is desertion or abandonment under § 617.55, intent to commit the offense must be proved to sustain the conviction.” The question was again reviewed in State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343 , 130 N. W. (2d) 623 , involving the presumption of intent to use burglary tools from the mere fact of their possession.
Lustik v. Rankila 131 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1964