Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Grilli, 230 N.W.2d 445.

72 citing documents.

Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
14 (explaining that a defendant must set forth “the basis for the claim of entrapment in reasonable detail”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[The defendant] shall give notice of such election to the court and prosecution, setting forth the basis for the claim of entrapment defense in reasonable detail.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 In the alternative, defendant may elect to have his claim presented as a defense to be decided by the jury.2 304 Minn. 80, 95-96
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g., State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 81, 87-96, 451-56 (1975); d 462, 469-70 (Minn. App. 2009), aff’d, State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Entrapment The supreme court articulated Minnesota’s entrapment doctrine in State v. Grilli , 304 Minn. 80, 88-96, -56 (1975).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Clark, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Clark, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 96
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 89
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant cannot be convicted when law enforcement “lured [him] into committing an offense which he otherwise would not have committed and had no intention of committing.” State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 88
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Marcel Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Marcel Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION Citing State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 85, 95, appellant argues that when an entrapment defense is presented to the court rather than to the jury, the issue is one of law, and review is de novo.
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
Relying on our decisions in State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 95 , the concurrence argues that Kuhlmann ratified his counsel’s stipulation to the previous-conviction elements and made it his personal act.
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 96
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
We have said that, “[t]he underlying purpose of the Spreigl notice is to avoid surprise to the defendant by giving him time to prepare a defense to the charges.” State v. Grilli, 804 Minn. 80 , 86, (“The notice requirement is designed to give a defendant sufficient opportunity to prepare for trial and to avoid situations where a defendant must defend against unexpected testimony regarding prior offenses.”).
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
3 State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 84 , -50 (1975) (“If a person’s conduct qualifies under [Minn.Stat.
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(West 1987); see generally State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80 -84, (noting that if a person is liable for aiding and abetting under section 609.05, he is charged as a principal even though under the common law he would have been an accessory).
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
But see State v. Grilli 304 Minn. 80, 95 , (stating, in a case decided before the enactment of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, that if a trial court is to act as finder of fact solely on the issue of entrapment, it must expressly decide the issue and provide findings of fact).
State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-31 (Minn.1983); State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 96
State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 87
State v. Niska 514 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1994
State v. Niska 514 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1994
Id; see also State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 96
State v. Johnson 511 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Johnson 511 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 89
State v. James 484 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. James 484 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 91
In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 91-92
State v. Lenorud 412 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lenorud 412 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 89 , (evidence on entrapment focuses first on whether police initiated the offense).
State v. Hernandez 395 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hernandez 395 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
§ 609.05 (1984), which provides that “[a] person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if he intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.” See State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 84 , (“If a person’s conduct qualifies under [§ 609.05], he is accused as a principal to the crime even though in common-law parlance, his conduct is that of an accessory”).
State v. Sandmoen 390 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sandmoen 390 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In response to the defendant’s claim that the waiver was invalid because he did not personally waive his right to jury trial on the entrapment issue, the court stated: In [State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80 , ], we said that ‘[i]f the defendant elects to have the court hear the claim, he must in open court or in writing waive a jury trial as to that issue.’ * * * While we intended to make it clear that the waiver should be by defendant, not by his counsel, in this case defendant was present when his
Grilli v. State 378 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Grilli v. State 378 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80
State v. Olson 361 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1985