Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sandve, 156 N.W.2d 230.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Sidney Phillip Monette Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sidney Phillip Monette Minn. Ct. App. 2024
charges were based on defendant’s participation, with two accomplices, in the armed taking or attempted taking of money from the clerk of the Brooks Superette.” (emphasis added)); (explaining that the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery after he beat a gas station attendant while trying to steal money from the register); (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 s
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellant’s argument that the district cour t erred in its jury instructions proceeds from the premise, based in caselaw, that one of the elements of first-degree aggravated robbery is that the defendant took property from another “know[ing] [that] he is not entitled to the property he takes.” -30 (Minn. 1983); State v. Sandve , State v. Bonga
Michael Opeoluwa Adebayo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
viction where the defendant attempted to take money from a store); State v. Duncan , 312 Minn. 17 , , 192 (1977) (affirming a robbery conviction where the defendant participated in taking money from a gas station); State v. LaJeunesse , 280 Minn. 381 , , 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 Mi
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
See Thompson, d at 153 ; State v. Rosen, 280 Minn. 550, 550-51 , (per curiam); see also State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229, 233-34 , -34 (1968).
State v. Thompson 427 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Thompson 427 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(emphasis added) (citing State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229 , ); (trial court should generally “leave it up to the defendant and his attorney to decide whether they want such an instruction.”) (emphasis added).
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
9(1) and (2) (1982); State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229, 231
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Jensen, 308 Minn. 377 , State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229
State v. Grey 256 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1977
State v. Grey 256 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1977
State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229 , State v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226 , 57 N.W.
State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
In State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229, 234 , 156 N. W. (2d) 230, 234 , we held that the trial court’s erroneous commentary on defendant’s failure to testify was not prejudicial because “[t]he evidence * * * seems to us to be so conclusive * * * that we cannot believe the court’s instruction, even though erroneous, could have had any detrimental effect on
State v. Thompson 173 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1970
State v. Thompson 173 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1970
We disposed of similar contentions in State v. Bonga, 278 Minn. 181 , 153 N. W. (2d) 127 , and State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229 , 156 N. W. (2d) 230 .
State ex rel. Haas v. Tahash 160 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1968
State ex rel. Haas v. Tahash 160 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1968
As we recently said in State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229 , 156 N. W. (2d) 230 , the claim of inadequate representation is becoming so commonplace that we see no need to discuss the issue in each case.
State v. Houge 159 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1968
State v. Houge 159 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1968
In State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229, 234 , 156 N. W. (2d) 230, 234 , we held that the trial court’s er *377 roneous commentary on defendant’s failure to testify was not prejudicial because “[t]he evidence * * * seems to us to be so conclusive * * * that we cannot believe the court’s instruction, even though erroneous, could have had any detrimental effe
State v. Rosen 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Rosen 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Rosen 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229 , , filed February 9, 1967, since this appeal was taken, dictates affirmance.
State v. Rosen 158 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1968
State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229 , 156 N. W. (2d) 230 , filed February 9, 1967, since this appeal was taken, dictates affirmance.