Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Russell, 236 N.W.2d 612.

30 citing documents.

Connor Jerome Eischens, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (“[Appellant’s] answers to questions by the prosecutor in this case disclose a factual basis for the plea even though no question was specifically directed to the element of intent to kill.”); d 542, 542 (Minn. 1972) (“[Appellant’s] answers to questions by the prosecutor
Abdullahi Aden Ibrahim v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Abdullahi Aden Ibrahim v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (“[Appellant’s] answers to questions by the prosecutor in this case disclose a factual basis for the plea even though no question was specifically directed to the element of intent to kill.”); (“[Appellant’s] answers to questions by the prosecuto
Emmanuel J Woart, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (“[Appellant’s] answers to questions by the prosecutor in this case disclose a factual basis for the plea even though no question was specifically directed to the element of intent to kill.”); (“[Appellant’s] answers to questions by the prosecut
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(when a defendant is represented by counsel it is presumed that he has been “informed of the nature of the offense and of his alternatives”) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Russell , (holding that a district court must first be satisfied that an ade quate factual basis exists for a guilty plea before the court accepts it).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 275, (stating that answers by a defendant are valid to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea even if they are not specifically directed to the element of intent).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Wolhowe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Wolhowe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 275
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 275, (concluding that “[d]efendant’s answers to questions by the prosecutor in this case disclose a factual basis for the plea [of guilt of second-degree intentional murder] even though no question was specifically directed to the element of intent to kill”); State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn.
State of Minnesota v. William Terrell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Terrell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 275, (“[Appellant's] answers to questions by the prosecutor in this case disclose a factual basis for the plea even though no question was specifically directed to the element of intent to kill.”); State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn. 522, 523, (“[Appellant's] answers t
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Theis, d at 649; State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 274, (stating that district court may not accept guilty plea “unless it is first satisfied that, among other things, the plea is supported by an adequate factual basis”).
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 275
State of Minnesota v. Damien Lashaun Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Lashaun Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
e factual basis for guilt [of felony terroristic threats] is lacking because he was never questioned about his intent or state of mind at the time he sent the letter or made the telephone call” on the basis that “[t]he district court could readily infer [defendant]’s intent to terrorize [some recipients of the letter and the call]”), review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998); cf. State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 274–75, (concluding that “[d]efendant’s answers to questions by the prosecutor in this cas
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice, Appellant./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice, Appellant./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 274-75, (stating that “a [district] court may not accept a defendant’s 6 guilty plea unless it is first satisfied that, among other things, the plea is supported by an adequate factual basis”).
State v. Lyle 409 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Lyle 409 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 275 , State v. Dickson, 294 Minn. 459, 460
State v. Brown 324 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1982
State v. Brown 324 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1982
State v. Hoaglund, 307 Minn. 322 , State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274
State v. Melina 295 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 1980
State v. Melina 295 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 1980
State v. Hoaglund, 307 Minn. 322 , State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274
State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
See, State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274 , State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn. 522