Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sorg, 144 N.W.2d 783.

50 citing documents.

A23-0588 Minn. 2024
“Corroborative evidence need not, standing alone, be sufficient to support a conviction, but it must ‘affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Sidney Phillip Monette Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sidney Phillip Monette Minn. Ct. App. 2024
229 (Minn. 1968) (explaining that “[a] man, later identified as [the defendant], walked into the hotel with his right hand in his jacket pocket and said to [a desk clerk], ‘This is a stickup’”); (explaining that the defendant was charged with simple robbery after he stole money from a cash register in the presence of a pharmacist); - 86 (Minn. 1966) (affirming a robbery conviction where the defendant took money and other items from a bar in the presence of bar patrons); Schachtel, 196 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
“Corroborative evidence need not, standing alone, be sufficient to support a conviction, but it must ‘affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.’ ” ().
St. Louis County Thissen, J. Took no part, Moore, J. State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
at 253 (); (stating that corroborating evidence is sufficient when it “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the tr uth of [the accomplice’ s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
" Clark , d at 253 (quoting State v. Sorg , 275 Minn. 1 , , 786 (1966) ).
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
262 (1968) (affirming a robbery conviction where the defendant took money from a grocery store); State v. Sandve , 279 Minn. 229 , , 231 (1968) (affirming a robbery conviction where the defendant took money from a hotel); State v. Bonga , 278 Minn. 181 , , 128 (1967) (affirming a robbery conviction where the defendant took money from a drug store); State v. Sorg , 275 Minn. 1 , , 785-86 (1966) (affirming a robbery conviction where the defendant took money and other items from a bar); Schachtel ,
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Sorg , 275 Minn. 1 , , 786 (1966).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[C]orroborative evidence is sufficient when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony.” State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the defendant to the place where the crime was committed under unusual circumstances; association with persons involved in the crime in such a way as to suggest joint participation; possession of an instrument or instruments probably used to commit the offense; and unexplained affluence or possessi on of the fruits of criminal conduct.” Clark, d at 254 (quoting State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5, ).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. M. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. M. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5, Star, 248 Minn. at 576, d at 98.
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
However, “corroborative evidence need not be of itself adequate to establish a prima facie case of guilt.” State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
The “evidence need not, standing alone, be sufficient to support a *613 conviction, but it must ‘affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.’ ” Reed, d at 584 (quoting State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5 , ).
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Put differently, the other evidence “ ‘is sufficient when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony.’ ” Harris, d at 227 (quoting State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5 , ).
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The accomplice-instruction rule does not require that the corroborative evidence, standing alone, be sufficient to support a conviction; rather, such evidence “must affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.” State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
This statutory rule reflects an inherent distrust of testimony from accomplices, who “may testify against another in the hope of or upon a promise of immunity or clemency or to satisfy other self-serving or malicious motives.” accord State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5
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
The court must bear in mind that “the testimony of an accomplice is considered inherently untrustworthy,” State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5 , and “[t]he accused is exposed to the danger of imprisonment based on the testimony of a witness naturally inclined to shift or diffuse criminal responsibility.” Mathiasen, 267 Minn. at 399 , d at 539 .
State v. Swenson 396 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Swenson 396 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5
State v. Houle 257 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1977
State v. Houle 257 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1977
State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
In State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1 , the court felt that there was not a very strong or convincing link between defendant and another robbery but nevertheless found that under the circumstances the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 8 , further develops the exceptions to the general rule.
State v. McGlynn 195 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1972
State v. McGlynn 195 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 1972
As we held in State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5 , corroborative testimony of nonaccomplices or other evidence may include: “* * * [P] anticipation in the preparation for the criminal act; opportunity and motive; proximity of the defendant to the place where the crime was committed under unusual circum *408 stances; association with
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
9 See, also, State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393 , State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1
State v. Stave 158 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1968
State v. Stave 158 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1968
3 State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1, 3 ; State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1, 5 , 144 N. W. (2d) 783, 786 .
State v. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
State v. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
State v. Elli, supra; State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 ; State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1 , 144 N. W. (2d) 783 .