Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McDonald, 251 N.W.2d 705.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
See also State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320, 321 , (finding the test for submitting lesser included crimes is whether there is a rational basis for verdict acquitting defendant of greater offense and convicting of lesser offense).
State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320
Herme v. State 384 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Herme v. State 384 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(per curiam), (per curiam), to support his argument that the retail market value at the time of the theft was not $2500.
State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986
State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986
See State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320, 321
State v. Hoffman 328 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1982
State v. Hoffman 328 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1982
See also State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320 , (test is whether there is rational basis for verdict acquitting defendant of greater offense and convicting of lesser offense).
State v. Hatcher 322 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1982
State v. Hatcher 322 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1982
State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320, 321-22
State v. Stigen 295 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1980
State v. Stigen 295 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1980
State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320 , State v. Malzac, 309 Minn. 300 , State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414
State v. Ferraro 290 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1980
State v. Ferraro 290 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1980
State v. McDonald, 312 Minn. 320, 323
LaMere v. State 278 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
LaMere v. State 278 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
Recent cases illustrating the application of this test include: State v. McDonald, Minn., and State v. Malzac, 309 Minn. 300
State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
This case is thus unlike State v. McDonald, Minn., where only one charge was submitted to the jury and there was a genuine issue about one of the necessary elements of the crime.
State v. Stout 273 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1978
State v. Stout 273 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1978
As we stated in State v. McDonald, Minn., “ ‘Value’ for purposes of the theft statute is defined by Minn.St.
State v. Nesgoda 261 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1977
State v. Nesgoda 261 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1977
Recent cases illustrating the application of this test include State v. McDonald, Minn., and State v. Malzac, Minn.