Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hall, 176 N.W.2d 254.
- State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In Webber, the supreme court stated that a valid indictment for burglary must “describe the building with sufficient certainty to apprise the defendant of the trend of the evidence to be offered against him” and “protect the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense .” d at 501; (distinguishing Webber and holding that information containing an “imperfect” description of a building was still sufficient to “adequately apprise[] the defendant” of the charges against him); (distinguis
-
Minn. 2019
In addition, the purpose of a charging document is to “specify the charge and at the same time to prevent defendant from being charged twice with the same crime.” State v. Hall , (stating that an information under which a defendant was charged is sufficient when “it adequately apprises the defendant of the charge on which he is being held and upon which he will be tried”).
- State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Dunson
770 N.W.2d 546
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
286 Minn. 424, 434-35 , -61 (1970).
- State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
- State v. Koskela 536 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1995
- State v. Ingold 450 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Ingold
450 N.W.2d 344
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424, 433
- In Re the Welfare of R.O.H. 444 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
In Re the Welfare of R.O.H.
444 N.W.2d 294
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Shore, 289 Minn. 302, 307 , citing State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424
- State v. Nelson 363 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Nelson
363 N.W.2d 81
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
and 4:00 a.m., raising an inference that there was an intent to steal, see State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424, 431 , (b) Nelson’s car was parked close to the plant, negating any argument that he was entering merely to keep warm; (c) Nelson’s car was seen parked in three different locations, with the driver waiting, the motor running, and the headlights off, evidencing a getaway car; (d) There was a
- State v. Walker 319 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1982
-
State v. Walker
319 N.W.2d 414
Minn. 1982
The leading pre-rules case dealing with footprint evidence in Minnesota is State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424
- State v. Davis 233 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1975
-
State v. Davis
233 N.W.2d 561
Minn. 1975
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 554 , State v. LaFrance, 302 Minn. 245 , State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424, 429 , State v. Wajda, 296 Minn. 29 , State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 34
- State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
-
State v. Wiley
205 N.W.2d 667
Minn. 1973
4 Doan v. State, 290 Minn. 105 , State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424 , Sims v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 538 , 87 S. Ct. 639 , 17 L. ed. 2d 593 (1967).
- State v. Olson 199 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1972
-
State v. Olson
199 N.W.2d 157
Minn. 1972
Defendant’s claim that the original information, which was later amended, was fatally defective in that it misidentified the owner of the store as being the owner of the building in which it was housed, must fail in view of our decisions in State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424 , State ex rel.
- State v. Colonga 188 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1971
- State v. Bergland 187 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1971
-
State v. Bergland
187 N.W.2d 622
Minn. 1971
State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424 , 176 N. W. (2d) 254 .
- State v. Alexander 185 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1971
-
State v. Alexander
185 N.W.2d 887
Minn. 1971
*12 State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424 , 176 N. W. (2d) 254 , cited by defendant on this issue, has several distinguishing characteristics.
- State v. Shore 183 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1971
-
State v. Shore
183 N.W.2d 776
Minn. 1971
State v. Hall, 286 Minn. 424 , 176 N. W. (2d) 254 .