Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
“Corroborating 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.”
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Humes 581 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1998
State v. Humes 581 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1998
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Kortkamp 560 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Kortkamp 560 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Souvannarath 545 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1996
State v. Souvannarath 545 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1996
However, it is not necessary that evidence corroborating accomplice testimony “establish a prima facie case of the defendant’s guilt.” (citation omitted).
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
State v. Stirens 506 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1993
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
the court made findings under this lesser standard when determining whether a defendant should be sentenced under Minn.Stat.
State v. Stirens 506 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1993
See (application of dangerous offender statute which required previous conviction).
State v. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Bright 471 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Bright 471 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Olson 459 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Olson 459 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
Warthan v. Midwest Consolidated Insurance Agencies, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Warthan v. Midwest Consolidated Insurance Agencies, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
Distinguished State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
we held that harmless error analysis applies to a trial court's erroneous refusal to instruct the jury that a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law.
State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
Explained State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
The court has required that “ ‘proof of the elements which differentiate the two crimes must be sufficiently in dispute so that a jury' may make this distinction.” Bellcourt, d at 273 ().
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In any event, that first degree manslaughter should be submitted only when the underlying crime is a misdemeanor or a crime against property.
State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
where we said: Corroborating evidence must link or connect the defendant to the crime.
State v. Williams 418 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1988
State v. Williams 418 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1988
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the remaining facts, as testified to by White, Braxton, and other gang members, are as follows.
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wallert 402 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987