Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Spann, 287 N.W.2d 406.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
It is true that when a “single witness’[s] identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, cor roboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained.” (-08 (Minn. 1979)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Stringer contends single-eyewitness identification is insufficient when based on “fleeting or limited observation,” – 408 (Minn. 1979) (noting that “fleeting or limited observation” is not sufficiently reliable).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d at 90 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Spann , –08 (Minn. 1979)).
- Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(rejecting appellant’s challenge to sufficiency of evidence identifying him as robber).
- In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
- State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
- State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
-
State v. Johnson
568 N.W.2d 426
Minn. 1997
This court has noted that “eye witness identification made upon fleeting or limited observation at the time of a crime is not reliable and in the absence of corroboration should not be the basis for conviction.” -408 (Minn.1979).
- State v. Peterson 533 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
State v. Peterson
533 N.W.2d 87
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
*90 A reviewing court must “determine whether the identification procedures used were so impermissibly suggestive as to create a ‘very substantial likelihood of irreparable misiden-tifieation.’ ”
- State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
-
State v. Harris
405 N.W.2d 224
Minn. 1987
375, 381-382 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); -11 (Minn.1980); -08 (Minn.1979).
- State v. Fox 396 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Fox 396 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Vadnais 394 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Vadnais 394 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Anderson
391 N.W.2d 527
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant claims that the eyewitness identifications were unreliable because they were based on limited observation, relying on a -408 (Minn.1979): We note, however, our belief that eye witness identification made upon fleeting or limited observation at the time of a crime is not reliable and in the absence of corroboration should not be the basis for conviction.
- State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Stanifer
382 N.W.2d 213
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
for the proposition that fifth-degree assault is not a lesser included offense of simple robbery.
- State v. McAlpine 352 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. McAlpine
352 N.W.2d 101
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ANALYSIS The Minnesota Constitution, Art. 1 § 7 provides: [N]o explains the test for determining whether double jeopardy is present: The applicable double jeopardy test is the so-called Blockburger test — see, Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct.
- State v. Saxton 331 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1983
- State v. Saxton 331 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1983
- State v. Weibel 314 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1982
- State v. Weibel 314 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1982
- State v. Esmailzadeh 312 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1981
- State v. Esmailzadeh 312 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1981
- State v. Walker 310 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1981
- State v. Walker 310 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1981
- State v. Callender 297 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1980
-
State v. Callender
297 N.W.2d 744
Minn. 1980
we need not decide this issue because the state in its brief indicates that it does not oppose the vacation of concurrent sentence for the weapons offense.