Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vail, 274 N.W.2d 127.

65 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
There are no “minimum evidentiary requirements in identification cases” and we “examine the sufficiency of the evidence on a case-by-case basis.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The state argues that direct evidence supports the conviction, and that circumstantial evidence also “corroborates the identification and weight of the methamphetamine.” Appellate courts “have not prescribed minimum evidentiary requirements in identification cases, preferring to examine the sufficiency of the evidence on a case -by- case basis.” State v. Vail , .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tysdale cites State v. Vail to argue the evidence is insufficient to uphold her conviction because “Minnesota law requires proof of the actual identity of the substance[.]”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
While “Minnesota law requires proof of the actual identity of the substance” in substance identification cases, “[ w]e have not prescribed minimum evidentiary 34 requirements.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
In State v. Vail, the district court found that two laboratory tests of a substance were “only screening tests not adequately specific to identify marijuana.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Fugalli essentially asks us to read section 152.021, subdivision 1(3), as follows: “A person is guilty of a controlled substance crime in the first degree if on one or more occasions 3 Fugalli relies on three primary cases identifying these elements : (identity); State v. Robinson , (weight); State v. Olhausen , (identity and weight).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason James Loveless, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The district court instructed the jury with respect to count 5, which concerns the leafy plant material, that the state was required to prove, among other things, that "the 1The BCA forensic scientist also referred to this analysis as "gas chromatography," which explains the meaning of the letters "GC," but she did not explain the meaning of the letters "MS." the supreme court described "gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy" as a laboratory analysis that may be used to identify marijuana.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minnesota courts “have not prescribed minimum requirements in [drug] identification cases, preferring to examine the sufficiency of the evidence on a case -by- case basis.” State v. Vail , see State v. Gruber , , 639 (Minn. App. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
appellant argues that, in a controlled-substance prosecution, proof of the actual identity of the controlled substance is required; the defendant’s belief about the identity of the substance is not sufficient.
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[The supreme court] ha[s] not prescribed minimum evidentiary requirements in identification cases, preferring to examine the sufficiency of the evidence on a case-by-case basis.”
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, e.g., Fogarty, 692 F.2d at 547 ; -36 (Minn.1979).
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
135-36 n. 14 (Minn.1979) (recognizing and upholding constitutionality of statutory scheme that separately defines and penalizes violations with narcotic drugs included in schedules of controlled substances in three tiers: (1) narcotic drugs, (2) other scheduled controlled substances, and (3) marijuana); see also Cla
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
We have stated that where the identification of the drug is in question, “[w]e have not prescribed minimum evidentiary requirements * * *, preferring to examine the sufficiency of the evidence on a case-by-case basis.”
State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
State v. Olhausen 669 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Olhausen 669 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Johnson v. Murray 648 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2002
Johnson v. Murray 648 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2002
State v. Wright 588 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wright 588 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-36 (Minn.1979), in which the supreme court rejected defendant’s equal protection challenge and held that the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance was within the proper power of the state to provide for the health and welfare of its citizens.
State v. Robinson 517 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1994
State v. Robinson 517 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1994
cited by both parties, the issue was the identity of 225 pounds of seized material claimed by the state to be marijuana.
State v. Gallus 481 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Gallus 481 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
However, penal statutes “must be strictly construed against the government.”
State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986