Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McDonald, 215 N.W.2d 607.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Lerma Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Lerma Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(explaining that jeopardy generally attaches once a jury is impaneled and sworn).
State of Minnesota v. Russell James Fenstermaker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Russell James Fenstermaker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452, -09 (1974).
State v. Hunter 815 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Hunter 815 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452 , -09 (1974).
State v. ROESCHELEIN 776 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. ROESCHELEIN 776 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State v. Yeboah 691 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Yeboah 691 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 454
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449 , -09 (1974).
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State v. LeRoy 594 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. LeRoy 594 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“[Jjeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled and sworn.” State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State v. Long 562 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1997
State v. Long 562 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1997
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State, City of Minneapolis v. Gilmartin 550 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State, City of Minneapolis v. Gilmartin 550 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452 , (stating the rule that no person may be put in jeopardy for the same offense, and jeopardy attaches when a jury is empaneled and sworn).
State v. Long 544 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Long 544 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1523, 1526 , 6 L.Ed.2d 901 (1961); State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 453-54 , -10 (1974).
State v. Strom 430 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Strom 430 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452 , 215 N.W.
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 454
State v. Hicks 380 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hicks 380 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State v. Fuller 374 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1985
State v. Fuller 374 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1985
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452 , -09 (1974).
State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
824 , 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978); State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449
State v. White 369 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. White 369 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452
State v. Fuller 350 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Fuller 350 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 452 , -09 (1974) (citing State v. Sommers, 60 Minn. 90 , 61 N.W.
State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
State v. Kjeldahl 278 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1979
State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449 , State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59
State v. Gwara 247 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 1976
State v. Gwara 247 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 1976
See, United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600 , 96 S. Ct. 1075 , 47 L. ed. 2d 267 (1976); State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449
State v. Taylor 234 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1975
State v. Taylor 234 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1975
Our discussion of a similar objection in State v. McDonald, 298 Minn. 449, 455 , disposes of the matter: “Defendant also contends that the state improperly cross-examined him concerning his prior criminal record, specifically including an ordinance violation.