Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Matousek, 178 N.W.2d 604.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
12 v. Matousek, 609-10 (Minn. 1970) (concluding the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft of a car under the relevant version of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-35 (Minn. App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-35 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A]s long as the evidence is adequate to show the fair market value of the property taken as being over [the statutory threshold], the value element of the crime of theft is established.” State v. Mastousek, 287 Minn. 344, 352
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
5 (stating that the value of stolen goods may be determined based on “direct and circumstantial evidence bearing on the value of the item in the retail market”); State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344, 352, (“This court has laid down the rule that as long as the evidence is adequate to show the fair market value of the property taken as being over [the statutory amount], the value element of the crime of theft is established.”).
State v. Ali 679 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ali 679 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
were denied by the reception of hearsay to establish an element of the crime.” See State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344, 350 , (recognizing that if business records “are offered to prove an essential element of the crime or connect the defendant directly to the commission of the crime, then they must be proved through persons having personal knowledge of the element or connection and such persons must be avai
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
§ 609.05 (1994); State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344
In Re the Welfare of L.Z. 396 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1986
In Re the Welfare of L.Z. 396 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1986
Respondents also argue business records may not be used to prove an essential element of an offense, citing State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344
Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344, 350
State v. Jensen 351 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Jensen 351 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344
In Re the Welfare of D.M.K. 343 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of D.M.K. 343 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
194 (1923); and an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice of the principal, State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , State v. Jensen, supra.
State v. Dahms 310 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1981
State v. Dahms 310 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1981
Rule 803(6) was not intended to change the decisions of this court in State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , and City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom, 280 Minn. 87 , cases which support defendant’s contention that evidence of this sort cannot be admitted under the business-records exception to prove an element of a crime.
State v. Pietraszewski 283 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1979
State v. Pietraszewski 283 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1979
State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552 , State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344
Tucker v. State 245 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1976
Tucker v. State 245 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1976
Thus, a person who feloniously receives stolen goods is not an accomplice of the thief, State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , and an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice of the principal, State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , State v. Jensen, supra.
State v. Swyningan 229 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1975
State v. Swyningan 229 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1975
Thus, a person who feloniously receives stolen goods is not an accomplice of the thief, State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , and an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice of the principal, State v. Matousek, 287 *556 Minn. 344, State v. Jensen, supra.
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
State v. Wiley 205 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1973
8 Defendant’s position is supported by State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
State v. Jensen 184 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1971
re declared by statute to constitute separate and distinct crimes, the participants guilty of one crime are not accomplices of those who are guilty of a separate and distinct crime.” So tested, a person who feloniously receives stolen goods is not an accomplice of the thief, State v. Kosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , ; and an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice, State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N. W. (2d) 604 , and State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , .