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. Villalon, 234 N.W.2d 189.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
    831 (Minn.1985) (citing State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547, 551 , ).
  • State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
    State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547, 549
  • State v. Lopez 587 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lopez 587 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1998
    (citing State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547, 551 , ).
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547, 551
  • State v. Olson 361 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Olson 361 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547, 549
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
    State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547, 551
  • State v. Davidson 351 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Davidson 351 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1984
    In State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , we stated that the trial court may refuse to let defense counsel comment on the absence of a witness — e.g., a government informer — if the circumstances do not give rise to the inference that his testimony would have been unfavorable to the state.
  • Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979
  • Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979
    See, e. g., State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , and State v. Werber, 301 Minn. 1
  • State v. Martinez 270 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Martinez 270 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1978
    State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , State v. Werber, 301 Minn. 1
  • State v. Houle 257 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Houle 257 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1977
    In State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , -, we set forth the standards to be applied in determining whether the identity of an informant properly has been withheld: “In recent years, this court has had several opportunities to apply the informer privilege rules set out in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
    State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , State v. Dienger, 286 Minn. 436
  • State v. Yaedke 242 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Yaedke 242 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1976
    State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547
  • State v. Luciow 240 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Luciow 240 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1976
    See, State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , State v. Werber, 301 Minn. 1 , State v. Radil, 288 Minn. 279 , certiorari denied, 401 U. S. 921 , 91 S. Ct. *15 910, 27 L. ed. 2d 825 (1971); State v. DeSchoatz, 280 Minn. 3 , State v. Purdy, 278 Minn. 133 , 153 N. W.