DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

155 citing documents.

  • State v. Porter 411 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
  • State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
  • State v. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , the supreme court listed the five factors to be considered in evaluating identification testimony: The factors involved would include the opportunity of the witness to see the defendant at the time the crime was committed, the length of time the person committing the crime was in the witness’
  • State v. Norregaard 380 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Norregaard 380 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313 , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , the court listed the factors which should be used to assess the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
  • State v. Hicks 380 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hicks 380 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313-14
  • State v. Jackson 363 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 363 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1985
    See State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315-16 , -54 (1969) (for a discussion of factors to be considered in assessing the reliability of eyewitness identifications).
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Morgan 358 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Morgan 358 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
  • State v. Mildenstein 358 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Mildenstein 358 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    -29 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (citing State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313 , ), pet.
  • Loftus v. State 357 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Loftus v. State 357 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
  • State v. Jackson 349 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jackson 349 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The reliability of the eyewitness identification was positive beyond a reasonable doubt when assessed against the above five factors in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Armstrong 352 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Armstrong 352 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313 , at 828 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
  • State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313 , citing, inter alia, State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399
  • Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See, e.g., Hamilton v. State, 293 Minn. 257, 262 , -75 (1972); State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 150 , State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313
  • State v. Svoboda 331 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Svoboda 331 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1983
    t the jury that identification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to refuse to give a cautionary instruction specifying the factors to be used in evaluating eyewitness identification testimony.” State v. Christian, 309 Minn. 393 , State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , and State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Rono 324 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Rono 324 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1982
    State v. Christian, 309 Minn. 393 , State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188 , and State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Meizo 297 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Meizo 297 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1980
    The decision of State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , which does not mention the Campbell case, contains language claimed to be in conflict with our opinion in Campbell .
  • State v. Spann 287 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Spann 287 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1979
    The cautionary instruction provided in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , —see, CRIMJIG 3.16 — is adequate.
  • State v. Rosenthal 269 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Rosenthal 269 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1978
    See, also, State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
    State v. Senske, supra; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208
  • State v. Armstrong 249 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Armstrong 249 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1976
    Unless you are convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the identification of this accused *543 as the alleged perpetrator of the acts involved in this case, you should find him not guilty.” The trial court properly gave the first part of the requested instruction, which was based on our decision in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Christian 244 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Christian 244 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1976
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , State v. Walters, 262 Minn. 26
  • State v. Luciow 240 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Luciow 240 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1976
    See, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 , 84 S. Ct. 1509 , 12 L. ed. 2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 , 89 S. Ct. 584 , 21 L. ed. 2d 637 (1969); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
    State v. Richmond, 298 Minn. 561 , Hamilton v. State, 293 Minn. 257 , ; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974