Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Clark, 134 N.W.2d 857.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The purpose of a complaint is to “apprise the defendant of the charge for which [she] is being held and tried.” -67 (Minn. 1965).
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Unless there is actual proof that defendant has in fact been misled as to the charge brought against him, to his prejudice, it is not ground for invalidating the conviction after a fair trial.” State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 552
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 551
State v. Lores 512 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Lores 512 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 553 , (holding that mere preparation for forgery without overt acts is insufficient).
State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Combs argues that State v. Briton, 265 Minn. 326 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , which allows only consideration of the foreign definition of the offense, should control.
State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Citing State v. Briton, 265 Minn. 326 , overruled on other grounds State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 551-52 , appellant argues that extrinsic evidence of the foreign conviction is prohibited if “by definition, that crime could have constituted an offense which is not a felony in this state.” Briton, 265 Minn. at 329 , d at 579 .
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 552 , Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 551 , -67 (1965).
In Re the Welfare of J. B. M. 263 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1978
In Re the Welfare of J. B. M. 263 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1978
In re Welfare of Hitzemann, 281 Minn. 275 , State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538
State v. Olson 199 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1972
State v. Olson 199 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1972
Webber v. Tahash, 277 Minn. 302 , and State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538
State v. Hawn 182 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
State v. Hawn 182 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
The admissibility of the June 16 check is governed by State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 556 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857, 869 , in which this court said: * The rule is well established that other checks cashed at or about the same time as the one upon which the charge is based.are admissible to show a common scheme or plan from which an inference may be drawn that defendant had knowledge that the checks were fo
State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
In State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 , we stated that a bind-over is justified when the the proof establishes probable cause that a crime was committed and that defendant is the one who committed it.
Ryan v. State 172 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 1969
Ryan v. State 172 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 1969
The opinion upon which defendant relies was specifically overruled in State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 .
Hayes v. State 169 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1969
Hayes v. State 169 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1969
Masters v. Tahash, 266 Minn. 348 , 123 N. W. (2d) 600 ; State v. Owens, 268 Minn. 321 , 129 N. W. (2d) 284 ; State v. Clark, 268 Minn. 429 , 131 N. W. (2d) 204 ; State v. Lehn, 270 Minn. 503 , 134 N. W. (2d) 329 ; *546 and State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 .
State v. Geshick 168 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1969
State v. Geshick 168 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1969
State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 .
In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
628.30 provides that “all the provisions of law relating to indictments and for testing the validity thereof, shall apply to informations.” In State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 551 , 134 N.W.
State v. Britt 156 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1968
State v. Britt 156 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1968
As we said in State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 551 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 , 867: “The essential function of either [an information or indictment] is to apprise the defendant of the charge for which he is being held and tried.
State v. Purdy 153 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1967
State v. Purdy 153 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1967
See, State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 ; State v. Demry, 260 Minn. 173 , 109 N. W. (2d) 587 , and cases and authorities cited therein.
State v. Pratt 152 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1967
State v. Pratt 152 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1967
6 Fully discussed in State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 .
State v. Hedstrom 148 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1967
State v. Hedstrom 148 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1967
State v. Polk, 263 Minn. 209 , 116 N. W. (2d) 540 ; State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 556 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857, 869 .
State v. Singh 419 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Schultz 136 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1965
State v. Schultz 136 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1965
628.19 provides in part: “No indictment shall be insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.” In State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538 , 134 N. W. (2d) 857 , this court manifested its conclusion not to adhere to State v. Briton, 265 Minn. 326 , 121 N. W. (2d) 577 , relied upon by defendant.