Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sutton, 138 N.W.2d 46.

40 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The identification testimony of a witne ss need not be positive and certain; it is enough for him to testify that his belief, opini on, impression, or judgment is that [the] accused is the person whom he saw commit the crime.” (quotation om itted).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
See State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399, 401, (“The law is clear.
State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313 , citing, inter alia, State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399
Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , [1965].
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
In State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , the defendant was charged with forging a narcotics prescription.
State v. Nolting 254 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1977
State v. Nolting 254 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1977
3 For example, a witness may identify a suspect even though, he can not recall the specific features of his face or person, State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , or testify that an individual staggered and slurred his speech tó show intoxication, State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350 , or testify as to the speed of an automobile, Daugherty v. May Brothers Co. 265 Minn. 310 , or testify as to the mental conditi
State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186 , State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399
State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
State v. Maloney 204 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1973
State v. Maloney 204 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1973
In State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399, 402 , we said: *266 “* * * [T]he believability and persuasive force of the identification testimony, as well as the defense evidence in the nature of an alibi, was for the jury.
Hamilton v. State 198 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
Hamilton v. State 198 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
State v. Otten 195 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
State v. Otten 195 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , .
State v. Senske 190 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1971
State v. Senske 190 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1971
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 ; State v. La Valla, 283 Minn. 202 , 167 N. W. (2d) 36 ; State v. Garrity, 277 Minn. 111 , 151 N. W. (2d) 773 ; State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
State v. Hill 172 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1969
State v. Hill 172 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1969
23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 903; Patterson v. United States (8 Cir.) 361 F. (2d) 632; State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 ; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 .
State v. Gluff 172 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1969
State v. Gluff 172 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1969
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 ; State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208 , 167 N. W. (2d) 55 .
State v. Burch 170 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1969
State v. Burch 170 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1969
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
State v. Ellingson 167 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1969
State v. LaValla 167 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1969
State v. Ellingson 167 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1969
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
State v. LaValla 167 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1969
State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
Courts are liberal in deciding whether such testimony is sufficient to uphold a conviction.” In State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 , this court applied that principle in affirming a felony conviction based upon eyewitness identification far short of that in this case.
State v. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
State v. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
t definitely connected with the offense for which he is on trial, evidence of other offenses may be introduced to connect and identify him with that one, and where the sole issue in a case is the identity of defendant, the evidence on that issue may be properly permitted to take a wide range to the extent that, in a measure, the rigid rules of evidence will be relaxed.” Again, in State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399, 402 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46, 47 , we stated: “* * * Evidence of other crimes closely conn