Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Swyningan, 229 N.W.2d 29.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The supreme court has stated unqualifiedly that “one who receives [a controlled substance] cannot be an accomplice of a person charged with distributing [it].”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555-56, - 33 (1975).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555-56, -33 (1975), the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whethe r a buyer of a controlled substance was an accomplice to the seller of the controlled subs tance.
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 556, (stating that “one who receives heroin cannot be an accomplice of a person charged with distributing heroin”); see also Pinkerton, d at 163 (stating that “an agreement solely between a seller and a buyer of controlled substances cannot constitute a conspiracy”).
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
21, 2004); see State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 556, d 29, 32 (1975) (concluding that one who purchases drugs is not the seller’s accomplice).
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555-56
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
Courts have not found due process violations in cases in which there was a high probability that the witness would commit 10 perjury, id., and those in which the defense witness was independently represented by counsel, State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 557
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And “[p]articipants guilty of one crime are not accomplices of those guilty of a separate and distinct crime.” State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 556
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
But “an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice.” (citing State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555-56 , ).
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555
State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
The general test for determining “whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of section 634.04 is whether he could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (citing State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555 , ).
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 556 , (holding that a person who obtains drugs from a seller is not an accomplice of the seller).
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
See State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555
State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552
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
In citing Jensen , the court in State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552, 555-56 , stated: *867 A corollary is that where the acts of several participants are 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.
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
State v. Kost 278 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1979
State v. Kost 278 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552
State v. Jones 249 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1977
State v. Jones 249 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1977
State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552
Tucker v. State 245 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1976
Tucker v. State 245 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1976
In State v. Swyningan, 304 Minn. 552 , this court stated the test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice: *485 “The general test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of § 634.04 is whether he could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.