DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gruber, 264 N.W.2d 812.

32 citing documents.

  • In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Id.; (finding the evidence inadequate to support a charge of aiding and abetting an offense when the defendant supplied a gun and car keys to the offender hours before they were used to commit manslaughter and there was no evidence that the defendant intended that the gun be used in the crime).
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
    1287 , 8 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962))
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
    -20 (Minn. *509 1978) (holding evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for aiding in the commission of heat-of-passion manslaughter).
  • State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (no connection between defendant’s acts and perpetrator’s crime where crime committed was one of sudden passion).
  • State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
    He “intentionally aided or promoted the crime which was committed.”
  • State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
    (evidence of defendant’s flight after crime suggests consciousness of guilt); (where defendant asserted self-defense, witness allowed to testify as to the actions of defendant during the fight); -20 (Minn.1978) (where defendant’s friend committed murder, defendant was with friend before the crime, and friend jumped in defendant’s car to escape after the crime); State v. Virgens, 128 Minn. 422, 425-26 , 151 N.W.
  • State v. Kessler 470 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Kessler 470 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    9 (1990); Parker, 282 Minn. at 356 , d at 641 .
  • State v. Parker 412 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Parker 412 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (allowing appellate consideration of admissibility of evidence despite lack of objection).
  • State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    see also United States v. Young, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct.
  • Matter of Welfare of M.D.S. 345 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1984
  • Matter of Welfare of M.D.S. 345 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1984
    refined but did not alter this standard.
  • State v. Hansen 312 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Hansen 312 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
    Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
    However, despite the fact that a co-defendant’s confession was admitted against the defendant at trial without objection by the defendant's attorney, the court considered the issue and said: [T]his court has demonstrated a strong aversion to the admission of such evidence in State v. Shotley, 305 Minn. 384, 387
  • State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980