Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Adams, 295 N.W.2d 527.

137 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
This evidence corroborated C.H.’s testimony that he was a methamphetamine addict in November 2021, and that he met Crenshaw “through mutual friends ” who were also “drug users.” (claiming that the court can find corroborating evidence “from the defendant’s association with those involved in the crime in such a way 9 as to suggest joint participation, as well as from the defendant’s opportunity and motive to commit the crime”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court can find corroborating evidence “from the defendant’s association with those involved in the crime in such a way as to suggest joint participation, as well as from the defendant’s opportunity and motive to commit the crime and his proximity to the place where the crime was committed.”
Donna Mae Bastyr, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Instead, we went on to observe that “our supreme court’s holding in State v. Adams that the admission of hearsay evidence in sentencing proceedings does not violate due process has not been overruled.” Rodriguez, d at 431 ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Instead, the corroborating evidence must also “link or connect the defendant to the crime.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“If the accused testified, the inadequacies and admissions in his testimony may be corroborative of the accomplice’s testimony.” State v. Adams
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Danny Lee Harper, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If the defendant’s “connection to the crime may be fairly inferred from those circumstances, the corroboration is sufficient.” State v. Pederson , ().
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Adams , , 533 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But, corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case of guilt, or address each element of the crime
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Corroborating evidence need not establish a 8 prima facie case of the defendant’s guilt, or address each element of the crime.
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Everett Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Everett Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case of guilt, or address each element of the crime.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The quantum of corroborative evidence needed necessarily depends on the circumstances of each case.” d 527, 533 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Corroboration may be found from “the defendant’s opportunity and motive to commit the crime and his proximity to the place where the crime was committed.”
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
§ 609.16 (1978), was unconstitutionally vague because it allegedly permitted the "use of unfettered discretion rendering the statute standardless.”
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
(internal citations omitted).
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(stating that inadequacies and admissions in defendant’s testimony may sufficiently corroborate accomplice testimony).
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
A. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to corroborate accomplice testimony, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the verdict.”
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Stated differently, “the proof of the elements [that] differentiate the two crimes must be sufficiently in dispute so that a jury may consistently find the defendant innocent of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense.”
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
There is no rational basis for an acquittal on the offense charged and a conviction on the lesser offense where the “ ‘proof of the elements which differentiate the two crimes [are not] sufficiently in dispute so that a jury’ may make this distinction.” ().
State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The quantum of corroborative evidence needed necessarily depends on the circumstances of each case.” (citation omitted).
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Corroborative evidence “may be secured from * * * the defendant’s opportunity and motive to commit the crime and his proximity to the place where the crime was committed.” (citation omitted).
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000