Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Crosby, 151 N.W.2d 297.
- State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
- State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
State v. Ring
554 N.W.2d 758
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 25
- State v. Hendrickson 528 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
State v. Hendrickson
528 N.W.2d 263
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 25 , (circumstantial evidence, including footprints leading from the building, was sufficient to identify defendant as one of the burglars).
- State v. Adamson 365 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Adamson
365 N.W.2d 282
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See State v. Mills, 289 Minn. 528, 529 , State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 25-26
- State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Bouwman
354 N.W.2d 1
Minn. 1984
“It is well established that the findings of the trial court, after waiver of a jury trial by a defendant, are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict.” State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 24 , (citations omitted).
- State v. Wiley 348 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Wiley
348 N.W.2d 86
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22
- State v. Cox 278 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1979
-
State v. Cox
278 N.W.2d 62
Minn. 1979
See, also, State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22 , State v. Gardin, 251 Minn. 157
- State v. Vail 274 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1979
-
State v. Vail
274 N.W.2d 127
Minn. 1979
State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 24
- State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
-
State v. Houff
243 N.W.2d 129
Minn. 1976
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22
- State v. Smith 203 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1972
-
State v. Smith
203 N.W.2d 348
Minn. 1972
We reiterate that our function in reviewing evidence “is not to try the facts anew but to determine from the record as a whole whether the evidence permits the inference required to justify a conviction.” State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 24 , State v. Carlson, 280 Minn. 77, 80 , State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
- State v. Mytych 194 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1972
-
State v. Mytych
194 N.W.2d 276
Minn. 1972
State v. Gardin, 251 Minn. 157, 161 , State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 24
- State v. Mills 185 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1971
-
State v. Mills
185 N.W.2d 276
Minn. 1971
State v. Bonga, 278 Minn. 181 , 153 N. W. (2d) 127 ; State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297 .
- State v. Bates 183 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1971
-
State v. Bates
183 N.W.2d 287
Minn. 1971
In State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 25 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297, 299 , this court made the following statement which aptly fits the instant case: “The evidence in this case is purely circumstantial.
- State v. Hall 176 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1970
-
State v. Hall
176 N.W.2d 254
Minn. 1970
State v. Witte, 280 Minn. 116 , 158 N. W. (2d) 266 ; State v. Dillon, 279 Minn. 105 , 155 N. W. (2d) 453 ; State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297 .
- State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
-
State v. Valstad
165 N.W.2d 19
Minn. 1969
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 25 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297, 300 .
- State v. Propotnik 158 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1968
-
State v. Propotnik
158 N.W.2d 861
Minn. 1968
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297 .
- State v. Witte 158 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1968
-
State v. Witte
158 N.W.2d 266
Minn. 1968
As we said in State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 25 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297 , 300: “* * * [T]he proof of intent to commit a crime in connection with proof of burglary is always one that must rest on a permissible inference from the facts proved.” With direct proof of an unauthorized entry, the fact that nothing was taken from the building does not destroy the reasonab
- State v. Dillon 155 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 1968
-
State v. Dillon
155 N.W.2d 453
Minn. 1968
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297 .
- State v. Kotka 152 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1967
-
State v. Kotka
152 N.W.2d 445
Minn. 1967
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22 , 151 N. W. (2d) 297 .