Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Burch, 170 N.W.2d 543.

155 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
725, 726 (Minn. 1898) (“It was not the duty of the jury to count the number of witnesses, and render a verdict in accordance with the majority of them, but to weigh the testimony, and render a verdict accordingly.”); (“We have said that a verdict may be based on the testimony of a single witness no matter what the issue .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(holding that “a verdict may be based on the testimony of a single witness no matter what the issue”).
State of Minnesota v. Tawan E. Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tawan E. Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4(c) (2020); (noting that a guilty verdict may be based on the testimony of a single witness).
Melissa Lynn Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(holding that constitutionally defective complaint and invalid arrest did not deprive district court of jurisdiction over the defendant who appeared and defended on the merits).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Matter of: Margaret Patricia Fagre, and o/b/o minor children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Cf., State v. Burch , (A final decision “may be based on the testimony of a single witness no matter what the issue.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
284 Minn. 300, 315-16, -54 (1969).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315-16, d 543, 553-54 (1969).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court has stated that “where requested by defendant’s counsel, we think the court should instruct on the factors the jury should consider in evaluating an identification and caution against automatic acceptance of such evidence.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single credible 6 witness”); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313, (noting that the supreme court has stated that “a verdict may be based on the testimony of a single witness no matter what the issue”).
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
284 Minn. 300, 316, -54 (1969).2 We are not persuaded.
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
284 Minn. 300, 315-16, -54 (1969); (applying the factors set out in Burch to determine whether evidence of the eyewitness testimony was sufficient to support a jury conviction), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
go to the weight to be accorded the testimony, not its admissibility.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
State v. Carlson 845 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Carlson 845 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
While indiscriminate searches and seizures authorized by general warrants are unlawful, Minnesota courts recognize that a complaint is “to be treated in a commonsense rather than overtechnical manner on review.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 308 , (noting that “the public policy of this state is to free criminal pleading from the pitfalls that resulted from the formalities and technicalities of common-law pleading” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citing and quoting State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315-16 , -54 (1969), review denied, (Minn. Jan.
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315-16 , -54 (1969), the supreme court set forth the following factors that are relevant in evaluating an identification: (1) the witness’s opportunity to see the defendant at the time the crime was committed; (2) the length of time the assailant was in the witness’s view; (3) the stress the witnes
State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
17, 1986); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313 , (listing factors that the jury may use to determine the reliability of eyewitness testimony).
State v. Lindsey 460 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Lindsey 460 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Meizo, d at 129-30 (Wahl, J., dissenting); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 308 , see also Boyer v. Arizona, 455 F.2d 804, 807 (9th Cir.1972) (Ely, J., dissenting); Fed.R.Crim.P.
State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
State v. Williams, 307 Minn. 191, 198 , State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
Case v. Pung 454 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Case v. Pung 454 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See, e.g., State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 310 , State v. Miernik, 284 Minn. 316, 319 , , 333 n. 3 (1969).
State v. Capers 451 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Capers 451 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The five factors to be considered in assessing identification by an eyewitness appear in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315-16 , -54 (1969): the opportunity of the witness to see the defendant at the time the crime was committed, [2] the length of time the person committing the crime was in the witness’ view, [3] the stress the witness was under at the time, [4] the lapse of time between the crime and the identifica
State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , the Minnesota Supreme Court discussed factors to be considered in assessing the reliability of eye-witness testimony.
Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
State v. Myers 413 N.W.2d 122 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Myers 413 N.W.2d 122 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313 , (court should have admitted photographic display to allow defendant to show any suggestive nature).
State v. Porter 411 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1987