Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Juelfs, 270 N.W.2d 873.

40 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Donald Jerome Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State v. Moore , -95 (Minn. 1990); State v. Juelfs , -74 (Minn. 1978)
, A22-0290 Minn. 2023
Richard Theodore Knoll v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-74 (Minn. 1978); - 95 (Minn. 1990).
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Generally, a defendant is not entitled to a new trial when a jury finds the defendant guilty of one count in a two-count indictment “even if the guilty and not guilty verdicts may be said to be logically inconsistent.”
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
verdicts may be said to be logically inconsistent.” –74 (Minn. 1978) (emphasis added).
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
Indeed, “a defendant who is found guilty of one count of a two count indictment or complaint is not entitled to a new trial or a dismissal simply because the jury found him not guilty of the other count, even if the guilty and not guilty verdicts may be said to be logically inconsistent.” -74 (Minn.1978); see also Leake, d at 325 (quoting Juelfs, d at 873-74 ).
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
at 325 (-74 (Minn.1978)).
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Olmscheid 492 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Olmscheid 492 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Thomas 467 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Thomas 467 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-74 (Minn.1978) (citation omitted).
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
Olkon, d at 104 ; see, generally Annot.
State v. Mimbach 420 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Mimbach 420 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981)
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. State 407 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. State 407 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court stated the following general rule: [A] defendant who is found guilty on one count of a two count indictment or complaint is not entitled to a new trial or a dismissal simply because the jury found him not guilty of the other count, even if the guilty and not guilty verdicts may be said t
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated the general rule to be applied upon review of ostensibly inconsistent verdicts: [A] defendant who is found guilty of one count of a two count indictment or complaint is not entitled to a new trial or a dismissal simply because the jury found *204 him not guilty of the other count
State v. Perkins 353 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1984
State v. Perkins 353 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1984
For example, (defendant found guilty of one count of a two count complaint is not entitled to a new trial or dismissal simply because the jury found him not guilty of the other count, even if the guilty and not guilty verdicts may be said to be logically inconsistent; jury may have believed the defendant guilty of both
State v. Czech 343 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1984
State v. Czech 343 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1984
954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981), (both stating the general rule that a defendant who is found guilty of one count of a two-count indictment or complaint is not entitled to a new trial or a dismissal simply because the jury found him not guilty of the other count, even if the guilty and not guilty verdicts may be said to be logically
State v. Olkon 299 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
State v. Olkon 299 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
State v. Juelfs 281 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1979
State v. Juelfs 281 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1979