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. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298.

68 citing documents.

  • State v. DeLegge 390 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The Minnesota Supreme Court stated section 624.714 is intended to “prevent the possession of firearms in places where they are most likely to cause harm in the wrong hands, i.e., in public places where their discharge may injure or kill intended or unintended victims.”
  • Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Error in the reception of evidence will only be disregarded “if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction,” or when the defendant’s guilt was “conclusively proven.” State v. *63 Fratzke, ( State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.
  • State v. Miho 372 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Miho 372 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
    The standard for establishing harmless error is demanding — the error will only be disregarded “if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction,” or when defendant’s guilt was “conclusively proven.” State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.
  • State v. Brechon 352 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
    Defendant’s initial burden of production alleviates the state’s difficulty in “proving a negative.”
  • State v. Folstrom 331 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Folstrom 331 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1983
    1 (1982), : [T]he statute is intended to prevent the possession of firearms in places where they are most likely to cause harm in the wrong hands, i.e., in public places where their discharge may injure or kill intended or unintended victims.
  • State v. Hoyt 304 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Hoyt 304 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1981
    The trial court, citing Williams v. United States, 138 F.2d 81 (D.C.Cir.1943) disagreed, holding that the phrase created an exception and imposed upon the defendant the burden of presenting a prima facie case that she came within the exception before the state would be required to prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Application of Atkinson 291 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1980
  • Application of Atkinson 291 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1980
    The following year, we identified the sound public policy reason behind that restriction: [T]he statute is intended to prevent the possession of firearms in places where they are most likely to cause harm in the wrong hands, i. e., in public places where their discharge may injure or kill intended or unintended victims.