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. Hyleck, 175 N.W.2d 163.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
    He relies on a comment to the JIG to support his argument: “The charge as to the lesser offense of murder in the second degree has been included because under the decision in State v. Hyleck, [ 286 Minn. 126 , ], it seems there are few cases in which murder in the second degree is not a lesser-included offense.” CRIMJIG 11.02 cmt.
  • State v. Othoudt 482 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Othoudt 482 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1992
    Compare Howard, d at 599 ; Ulm, d at 162 ; State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126, 133 , -69 (1970), cert.
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
    They may be as instantaneous as the successive thoughts of the mind.’ “In State v. Hyleck [ 286 Minn. 126, 140 , , certiorari denied, 399 U.S. 932 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
    See State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126, 144-45 , -75 , cert.
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
    Similarly, in State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126 , consent was found when the defendant had his house keys delivered to the police to search for a murder weapon; and, in State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1 , when the defendant suggested to the police that they go to the basement of his home to see if money had been taken to d
  • State v. Hatcher 322 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Hatcher 322 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1982
    JIG 11.02, wherein it is stated: The charge as to the lesser offense of murder in the second degree has been included, because under the decision in State v. Hyleck, [ 268 Minn. 126 , ], it seems there are few cases in which murder in the second degree is not a lesser-included offense.
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
    Hyleck [ 286 Minn. 126, 140 , , certiorari denied, 399 U.S. 932 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Organ 263 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Organ 263 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1978
    See, State v. Swanson, 307 Minn. 412 , State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126 , , certiorari denied, 399 U.S. 932 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
    State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126 , , certiorari denied, 399 U.S. 932 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Swanson 240 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Swanson 240 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1976
    See, State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126
  • State v. Turner 239 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Turner 239 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1976
    3 State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126, 139 , certiorari denied, 399 U. S. 932 , 90 S. Ct. 2267 , 26 L. ed. 2d 803 (1970).
  • State v. White 203 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1973
  • State v. White 203 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1973
    We have in other contexts declined to reverse because of improper cross-examination of a defendant, e. g., State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126 , , certiorari denied, 399 U. S. 932 , 90 S. Ct. 2267 , 26 L. ed. 2d 803 (1970), or *226 because of questionable final argument, e. g., State v. Forichette, 279 Minn. 76 , State v. Comparetto, 292 Minn. 425
  • State v. Granroth 200 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Granroth 200 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1972
    State v. Hyleck, 286 Minn. 126, 139 , , certiorari denied, 399 U. S. 932 , 90 S. Ct. 2267 , 26 L. ed. 2d 803 (1970); see, also, 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, §§ 852 to 854.