Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hamilton, 289 N.W.2d 470.

51 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
For example, in Otto, as follows: because new legislation did not include a statement r egarding whether the law “applied only to crimes committed after the effective date, the presumption to apply the amelioration doctrine remained intact.” d at 503-04.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. I. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (“Despite the minor inconsistencies in the state’ s case and the relative inconclusiveness of the supporting evidence, we defer to the jury’s right to believe the complainant and disbelieve the defendant and hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts of guilt beyond a reasonab
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Although we first used the term “amelioration doctrine” in Kirby, we recognized that “four of our prior cases ha[d] followed and analyzed the doctrine.” Kirby, d at 489; see also Coolidge, d at 514–15; –75 (Minn. 1979)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason James Loveless, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kirby, d at 495-96; Otto, d at 503-04; Edstrom, d at 10; -75 (Minn. 1979); Coolidge, d at 514-15.
Minn. 2021
at 492 (collecting cases); (repeal and replacement of a sodomy statute); d 470, 474 (Minn. 1979) (same); Ani v. State , (same); Edstrom, d at 10 (amendment to criminal sexual conduct statute).
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
State v. Otto 899 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 2017
State v. Otto 899 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 2017
-75 (Minn. 1979), is consistent-with this result.
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Subsequently, the supreme court applied the Coolidge principle to resentence an appellant where the statute under which the appellant was sentenced was repealed and replaced with a new statute providing for a lower maximum punishment in State v. 5 Hamilton, -75 (Minn. 1979)
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
13 (Minn. 1979) (“[T]he jury was entitled to believe complainant’s story and disbelieve defendant’s account.”).
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[T]he jury was entitled to believe complainant’s story and disbelieve defendant’s account.”).
State v. Lewis 656 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2003
State v. Lewis 656 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2003
708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987)); -15 (Minn.1979) (applying a statutory amendment that mitigated punishment for criminal sexual conduct to acts committed by defendant before its effective date because no final judgment had been entered); -75 (Minn.1979) (vacating a sentence based on a criminal statute that was repealed while the defendant’s conviction was on appellate' review).
State v. Lanz-Terry 535 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1995
State v. Lanz-Terry 535 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1995
3 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 265 at 173 (2d ed. 1994)
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Davidson 471 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
See (implicit policy of [rape shield law] is to protect victim “from perhaps irrelevant and unnecessary ‘besmirching of her character for chastity’ ”).
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
* * * If there are no further appeals, our decision will render the judgment final.”); -75 (Minn.1979) (the statute under which the defendant was convicted subsequently was repealed; “Of course judgment is not yet final in defendant’s case.”).
State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bonn 412 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bonn 412 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wedan v. State 409 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wedan v. State 409 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Guy 409 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Guy 409 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
2 the complainant’s testimony was also weakly corroborated, but the supreme court still rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the guilty verdicts: Nor is this case one in which the evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence is completely dependent upon a sing
State v. Anderson 394 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 394 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
It does not call for violation of the policy implicit in the eviden-tiary standards by the unnecessary “besmirching of her character for chastity.” (quoting State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291, 295 , ).
State v. Roberts 393 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Roberts 393 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hanson 382 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hanson 382 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the court stated the fact finder must be deferred to, despite minor inconsistencies in the State’s case and the relative inconclusiveness of the supporting evidence.
State v. Taylor 353 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Taylor 353 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Heinzer 347 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Heinzer 347 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Caswell 320 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 1982
State v. Caswell 320 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 1982
1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); and discussion in Berger, Man’s Trial, Woman’s Tribulation: Rape Cases in the Courtroom, 77 Colum.L.Rev.
State v. Owens 304 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1981

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by