Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 152 N.W.2d 768.

55 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(concluding that there was sufficient evidence to constitute “bodily harm” when the victim experienced pain from being struck); (finding sufficient evidence of physical injury based on a bruise).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court reached a
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
and that the evidence was sufficient for the [fact-finder] to find that he did experience pain.” (concluding that evidence was sufficient to show bodily harm when the victim experienced pain from being struck).
Jose Angel Trevino, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Mattson , -15 (Minn. 1985)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
.” see, (finding sufficient evidence of bodily harm based on a bruise); (concluding there was sufficient evidence to constitute bodily harm when victim experienced pain from being struck and shoved, despite lack of permanent or serious injury).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The evidence of bodily harm is sufficient if, for example, “the jury could find that the victim suffered physical pain.” State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237, d 768, 773 (1967).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 7 230, 237, (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because he felt pain when defendant struck him).
State of Minnesota v. Esteban Perez-Juarez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Esteban Perez-Juarez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237, (“[T]hat the victim suffered physical pain .
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm from involuntary ingestion of drugs, which caused grogginess, inability to move, and disorientation); -15 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because defendant’s contact caused bruising); State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237, (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because he felt pain when defendant struck him).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
7, based on a bruise); State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237 , (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to constitute “bodily harm” under Minn.Stat.
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
See Vaughn, d at 56 (“A confession is any statement by a person in which he explicitly or implicitly admits his guilt of a crime.” (emphasis added)); State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 236 , (“A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged....
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See State v. Smith, 264 Minn. 307, 313 , (stating a confession refers “only to a direct or implied acknowledgment of guilt, after an offense [was] committed”); see also State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 235 , (stating that a confession is a party’s acknowledgment “of his guilt of the crime charged”).
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237 , (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to constitute “bodily harm” when the victim experienced pain from being struck); (finding sufficient evidence of physical injury based on a bruise)
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 235-36 , State v. Guevara, 270 Minn. 356, 360
State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237 , cert.
State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 235 , cert.
State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
7 (1984); State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237 , cert.
Vikse v. Flaby 316 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1982
Vikse v. Flaby 316 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1982
This court has held that a “trial judge is in the best position to appraise the effect on the jury of the conduct complained of.” State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 235 , cert.
State v. Fossen 282 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1979
State v. Fossen 282 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1979
As this court stated in State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 235 , cert.
State v. Moss 269 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1978
State v. Moss 269 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1978
State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , certiorari denied, 390 U.S. 990 , 88 S.Ct.
Gruenhagen v. Larson 246 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1976
Gruenhagen v. Larson 246 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1976
State v. Ferraro, 277 Minn. 204 , State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , , certiorari denied, 390 U. S. 990 , 88 S. Ct. 1190 , 19 L. ed. 2d 1297 (1967).
State v. Fagerstrom 176 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1970
State v. Fagerstrom 176 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1970
See, State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , 152 N. W. (2d) 768 , certiorari denied, 390 U. S. 990 , 88 S. Ct. 1190 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 1297.
Hayes v. State 169 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1969
Hayes v. State 169 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1969
State v. Sutton, 277 Minn. 157 , 152 N. W. (2d) 57 ; State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , 152 N. W. (2d) 768 , certiorari denied, 390 U. S. 990 , 88 S. Ct. 1190 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 1297; State v. Schumann, 280 Minn. 48 , 157 N. W. (2d) 758 ; State ex rel.
George v. Marvin L. George Builders, Inc. 164 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1969
George v. Marvin L. George Builders, Inc. 164 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1969
The following are not considered causes for continuance: “(c) Unavailability of a medical or other witness, if his deposition could have been taken between the time notice of hearing was sent and time of trial.” 5 Souden v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 87 , 151 N. W. (2d) 767 ; State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , 152 N. W. (2d) 768 , certiorari denied, 390 U. S. 990 , 88 S. Ct. 1190 , 19 L. ed. (2d) 1297; Kvanli v. Village of Watson, 272 Minn. 481 , 139 N. W. (2d) 275 ; Williams v. Jayne, 210 Minn. 594 , ;
State v. Russell 164 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1969
State v. Russell 164 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1969
State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , 152 N. W. (2d) 768 ; State v. Heffelfinger, 200 Minn. 268 , ; Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. ed. (2d) 705.
State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , 152 N. W. (2d) 768 .
State v. Richardson 158 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1968
State v. Richardson 158 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1968
Additionally, this issue of jurisdiction over the person, sought to be raised for the first time in a postconviction proceeding, is controlled by the well-settled rule recently applied in State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230 , 152 N. W. (2d) 768 , and State v. Porter, 274 Minn. 419 , 144 N. W. (2d) 260 .
State Ex Rel. Turner v. Tahash 156 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1968