Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bagley, 175 N.W.2d 448.

59 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Caselaw establishes that “[a]n individual’s unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) ().
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jermaine Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jermaine Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating roughly four months after a series of burglaries began was still a reasonable amount of time within which to discover the stolen goods).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.’” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) ().
Anthony James Olgeirson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“It is well established that unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a burglary or theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Steven Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Steven Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[C]ourts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than commonsense, manner; the test of probable cause is met if the affidavit sets forth competent evidence sufficient to lead a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that there is a basis for the search.” State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 192
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.’” –78 (Minn. App. 2007) (quoting State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188, ).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darryl Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darryl Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The fact-finder inferred the value of several stolen items in State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188, (upholding inference that stolen items found in a defendant’s home were worth at least $100 and rejecting the defendant’s 6 argument that only items positively identified as taken from one of three stores could be considered in decidin
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 187, (holding that the “quality of possession required to satisfy the theft or larceny statute is personal and exclusive possession” but that “‘personal’ possession does not require that the property be actually in [the] defendant’s hands or on his person”).
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188
State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
); “a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious [person] in believing the accused to be guilty,” (internal quotes omitted); “evidence sufficient to lead a reasonably prudent person to believe there is a basis for the search,” Richardson, d at 579 (citing State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 192 , ); “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” Wiley, d at 268 (quoting Illinois v
State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 192
State v. Richardson 514 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Richardson 514 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 192 , (citing State v. *580 Suess, 280 Minn. 308, 312 , ).
State v. Duea 414 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Duea 414 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188 , (Minn.Ct.App.
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 186 , *662 State v. Ellingson, 283 Minn. 208, 211
Hanson v. State 344 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hanson v. State 344 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“It is well established that unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time- after a burglary or theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188
In Re the Welfare of M. A. 310 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1981
In Re the Welfare of M. A. 310 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1981
See State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 470 , State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180
State v. Wiberg 296 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1980
State v. Wiberg 296 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1980
See Husten v. United States, 95 F.2d 168 (8th Cir. 1938) (unexplained possession of stolen property shortly after the theft is sufficient to justify conclusion by jury of knowledge by possessor that property was stolen); cf. State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180 , (unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft is sufficient to support a conviction).
State v. Ferraro 290 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1980
State v. Ferraro 290 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1980
See State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180
State v. Martin 212 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1973
State v. Martin 212 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1973
State v. Radil, supra; State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180
State v. Phelps 209 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1973
State v. Phelps 209 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1973
State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180 , State v. Zoff, 196 Minn. 382
State v. Cernohous 205 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1973
State v. Cernohous 205 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1973
Indeed, if the scope of such search is not authorized under the “plain sight” rule, Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217 , 80 S. Ct. 683 , 4 L. ed. 2d 668 (1960); State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180 , it is clearly permissible under Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 , 87 S. Ct. 1642 , 18 L. ed. 2d 782 (1967).
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
5 United States v. Harris, 403 U. S. 573 , 91 S. Ct. 2075 , 29 L. ed. 2d 723 (1971); State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180 , State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228
State v. Van Wert 199 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1972
State v. Van Wert 199 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1972
State v. Taylor, 290 Minn. 515 , State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180
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 v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 , 54 S. Ct. 11 , 78 L. ed.
State v. Arnold 196 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1972
State v. Arnold 196 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1972
State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188
State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
*321 “We are also governed by the rule that on appeal this court must take the evidence most favorable to the state and must assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved anything which contradicted their testimony.” See, also, State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 186 , State v. Schabert, 222 Minn. 261, 268
State v. LaBarre 195 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1972