DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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