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. Houle, 257 N.W.2d 320.

55 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    2 An accomplice is “one who has been or who could be convicted of the same offense with which the defendant has been charged.” State v. Houle , d 320, 324 (Minn. 1977).
  • State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “Our case law defines an accomplice as one who has been or who could be convicted of the same offense with which the defendant has been charged.”
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
    See, State v. Werber, 301 Minn. 1, 7-9 , -51 (1974); State v. Purdy, 278 Minn. 133, 144
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
    Where the informant is merely a transmitter of information rather than an active participant in or material witness to the crime, however, disclosure is generally not required, and mere speculation that the informant may have framed the defendant does not, by itself, warrant disclosure.
  • State v. Souvannarath 545 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Souvannarath 545 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1996
    Such evidence “is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its tiuth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
    Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it “restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” Scruggs , at 713 ().
  • State v. Jinkerson 469 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Jinkerson 469 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Further, corroborative evidence is sufficient if it “restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
  • State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
    Burgess and Taylor were accomplices because they “could be convicted of the same offense with which the defendant has been charged.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    § 634.04 (1986) provides that “[a] conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense * * An accomplice is “one who has been or could be convicted of the same offense with which the defendant has been charged.”
  • State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case, and “is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” ().
  • State v. Miller 396 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Henderson 394 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Henderson 394 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case and “ ‘is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.’” ().
  • State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Corrobo *484 ration “is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” (citation omitted)
  • State v. Heuer 368 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Heuer 368 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Corroboration “is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
  • State v. Wiley 366 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Wiley 366 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1985
    (upholding trial court’s refusal to disclose the identity of the informant who was a transmitter of information to the police but not a participant or observer in the crime itself).
  • State v. Nelson 363 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Nelson 363 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    It “is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplices testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to defendant’s guilt in substantial degree.” see Jones, at 799.
  • State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Pietraszewski 283 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1979