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. Witt, 245 N.W.2d 612.

40 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. B. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    (concluding a rape victim “had more than ample opportunity to observe her assailant during the crime”).
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
    See, (“State legislatures possess broad discretion to define criminal offenses and prescribe penalties therefor.”).
  • State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    The legislature can "selectively deal with those acts which it deems to pose the most significant harms to society.” State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 211-12
  • Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    ting that one-person photo lineup was unduly suggestive and analyzing identification under the totality of the circumstances); Ostrem, d at 921 (“Single photo line-up identification procedures have been widely condemned as unnecessarily suggestive.”); (finding suggestive a photo lineup containing two pictures of defendant); State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 212-13 , -15 (1976) (finding improper suggestion when victim who failed to pick defendant from a photo lineup later picked the defendant in an i
  • State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    and therefore should be treated separately.” State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 216 , (discussing statutory provisions penalizing aggravated criminal-sexual conduct with varying severity).
  • Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Carithers 484 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Carithers 484 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 215
  • State v. Jinkerson 469 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Jinkerson 469 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 216-217 , -617 (Minn.1976) (citation omitted).
  • McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 460 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • White v. State 400 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • White v. State 400 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Criminal statutes must not prescribe different punishments “ ‘for the same acts committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situation.’ ” State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 215 , (quoting 16A C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 564).
  • Bettin v. State 396 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Bettin v. State 396 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 215 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: The sole limitation which the equal protection clause imposes upon the legislature in the exercise of this power is that criminal statutes must not prescribe different punishments for the same acts committed under the same circumstances by persons
  • State v. Sims 375 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sims 375 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See, e.g., State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211
  • State v. Galvan 368 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Galvan 368 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 213
  • State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See Webber, d at 10 ; State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 213
  • State v. Russell 330 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Russell 330 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1983
    See, State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 213
  • State v. Darveaux 318 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Darveaux 318 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1982
    State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211
  • Wegan v. Village of Lexington 309 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Knight 295 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Knight 295 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1980
    See State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 213
  • State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
    State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 215 , State v. Dietz, 264 Minn. 551, 558
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
    In State v. Witt, 310 Minn. 211, 213 , this court stated that such a procedure is unduly suggestive: [W]e do not condone these unnecessarily suggestive procedures.
  • State v. Darby 599 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Carle v. State 257 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1977
  • Carle v. State 257 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1977
    See, State v. Witt, Minn., Schwartz v. Talmo, 295 Minn. 356 , , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 803 , 94 S.Ct.