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. Mathiasen, 127 N.W.2d 534.

73 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 397-98
  • 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. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
    See Minn. Stat. § 634.04 (2000); 6 State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393 , 397 & n. 3, , 538 & n. 3 (1964) (reversing a conviction where the record contained no evidence that corroborated the accomplice’s testimony or supported a finding of the defendant’s guilt).
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393
  • State v. Bright 471 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Bright 471 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    (citing State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 399 , ).
  • State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398-99
  • State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 399
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393
  • Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398
  • State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 399 , (possession of fruits of crime is corroborative of accomplice testimony).
  • State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Compare State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393 , (accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated where testimony merely place the defendant at the scene of the crime and where defendant never said anything inconsistent with a claim of innocence).
  • State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
    * * * [l]t must affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the *228 defendant in some substantial degree.” State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5 , (citations omitted); see also State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 399 , (“The quantum of corroborative evidence required in any case will depend on the circumstances involved * * *.”).
  • State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    *572 “The quantum of corroborative evidence required in any case will depend on the circumstances involved, with consideration given to the claims of both the defendant and the state.” State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 399
  • State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (citing State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393 , ).
  • 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 State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 399 , (if the statutory mandate for corroboration of accomplices is to be altered to facilitate convictions, the change should be made by the legislature, not the courts).
  • 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. Heuer 368 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Heuer 368 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Under the factors set out in State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398-99 , -39 (1964), the corroborating evidence was sufficient.
  • 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
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393 , sets forth the requirements of corroboration needed to support a conviction based on accomplice testimony.
  • State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
    State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393
  • State v. Caulfield 269 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Caulfield 269 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1978
    State v. Mathiason, 267 Minn. 393
  • State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971