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. Caron 218 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1974
    The second error alleged by defendant is the trial court’s failure to give detailed instructions, such as those discussed in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , on the factors which a jury should consider in evaluating eyewitness identification testimony.
  • State v. Noland 214 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Noland 214 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1973
    See, e. g., Broberg v. State, 287 Minn. 66 , , certiorari denied, 400 U. S. 843 , 91 S. Ct. 87 , 27 L. ed. 2d 79 (1970); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Phelps 209 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Phelps 209 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1973
    See, State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , State v. Campbell, 281 Minn. 1
  • State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
  • State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
    State v. Senske, 291 Minn. 228 , State v. Stark, 288 Minn. 286 , State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. Maloney 204 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Maloney 204 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1973
    Pretrial photographic identification will be set aside only where the procedure “was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 384 , 88 S. Ct. 967, 971 , 19 L. ed. 2d 1247, 1253; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 314
  • State v. Smith 203 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Smith 203 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1972
    While we consider it the better practice to put such information in the affidavit, “the primary concern is that the magistrate be sufficiently informed to make an independent determination, and not how he is so informed.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 307 , State v. Campbell, 281 Minn. 1
  • Hamilton v. State 198 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
  • Hamilton v. State 198 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
    See, State v. Kohuth, 287 Minn. 520 , Broberg v. State, 287 Minn. 66 , , certiorari denied, 400 U. S. 843 , 91 S. Ct. 87 , 27 L. ed. 2d 79 (1970); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315 , State v. McConoughey, supra.
  • State v. Harbitz 198 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Harbitz 198 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1972
    The state contends that defendant has waived his right to raise this objection on appeal, citing State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , and State ex rel.
  • State v. Cvar 196 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Cvar 196 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1972
    State v. Suess, 280 Minn. 308 , State v. DeSchoatz, 280 Minn. 3 , State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180 , State v. Purdy, 278 Minn. 133 , State v. Emerson, 266 Minn. 217 , United States v. Skinner, 412 F. 2d 98 (8 Cir. 1969); Raniele v. United States, 34 F. 2d 877 (8 Cir. 1929); Nathanson
  • State v. Ritchie 195 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hayes 195 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Hayes 195 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1972
    * * * “* * * [A]lthough the lineup may have fallen short of the ideal, it was not so ‘ “impermissibly suggestive” as to give rise to any serious likelihood of misidentification or to result in a denial of due process.’ State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 314 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543, 553 .” See, also, State v. McConoughey, 282 Minn. 161
  • State v. Ritchie 195 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1972
    Defendant bases his claim on the holding in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300
  • State v. LaBarre 195 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Liebrenz 194 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1972
  • State v. LaBarre 195 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1972
    bable cause if the affidavit contains the underlying facts and circumstances to enable the magistrate to independently judge (1) that the informant obtained his knowledge of the reported criminal activity in a reliable manner; and (2) that the officer-affiant had a sufficient basis to believe that the informant was “credible” or his information “reliable.” Aguilar v. Texas, supra; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , State ex rel.
  • State v. Liebrenz 194 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1972
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , State v. Miernik, 284 Minn. 316
  • State v. Shore 183 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Shore 183 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1971
    We have applied this test in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 , and State v. Miernik, 284 Minn. 316 , 170 N. W. (2d) 231 .” Applying that test we conclude that this search warrant was issued in accordance with constitutional safeguards.
  • State v. Bishop 183 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Bishop 183 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1971
    This court followed that rule in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 .
  • State v. Stark 179 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Stark 179 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1970
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 .
  • Simberg v. State 179 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1970
  • Simberg v. State 179 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1970
    We repeat what we said in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 , 553: The police should increase the number of people appearing in lineups and attempt to find people who bear reasonable physical similarity to the one alleged to have committed the crime.
  • Broberg v. State 176 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1970
  • Broberg v. State 176 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1970
    We conclude that under the circumstances of the present case, although the lineup may have fallen short of the ideal, it was not so “ ‘impermissibly suggestive’ as to give rise to any serious likelihood of misidentification or to result in a denial of due process.” State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 314 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543, 553 .
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 ; State v. La Valla, 283 Minn. 202 , 167 N. W. (2d) 36 ; State v. Garrity, 277 Minn. 111 , 151 N. W. (2d) 773 ; State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 .
  • State v. Beers 176 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Beers 176 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1970
    State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 ; State v. McConoughey, 282 Minn. 161 , 163 N. W. (2d) 568 ; State v. Suess, 280 Minn. 308 , 159 N. W. (2d) 180 ; State v. Bogar, 280 Minn. 191 , 158 N. W. (2d) 501 ; State v. DeSchoatz, 280 Minn. 3 , 157 N. W. (2d) 517 ; Spinelli v. United *290 States, 393 U. S. 410 , 89 S. Ct. 584 , 21 L. ed. (2
  • State v. Bagley 175 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Bagley 175 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1970
    See, State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 .
  • State v. Pietraszewski 172 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Pietraszewski 172 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1969
    We have applied this test in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 , and State v. Miernik, 284 Minn. 316 , 170 N. W. (2d) 231 .
  • State v. Hill 172 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Hill 172 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1969
    23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 903; Patterson v. United States (8 Cir.) 361 F. (2d) 632; State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399 , 138 N. W. (2d) 46 ; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 .
  • State v. Gluff 172 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Gluff 172 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1969
    State v. Walters, 262 Minn. 26 , 113 N. W. (2d) 468 ; State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 ; State v. Garrity, 277 Minn. 111 , 151 N. W. (2d) 773 .
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Mastrian 171 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1969
    The quantum and quality of proof required was recently outlined in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300 , 170 N. W. (2d) 543 .
  • State v. Musta 170 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1969