Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rosillo v. State, 278 N.W.2d 747.

47 citing documents.

Berry Alan Willis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court must “clearly instruct the jury on exactly what it is they must decide.” (citing Rosillo v. State , ).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Nathan Benvie, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Nathan Benvie, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In a case concerning a large number of stolen coins, the supreme court reasoned that “the normal place that defendant would be expected to keep those coins which he could not carry would be at his residence.”
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–49 (Minn. 1979) (noting that we interpret search warrant affidavits in a “common-sense and realistic manner” when conducting a probable-cause review).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that because of the large number of coins taken in the burglary, it was unlikely that the defendant 7 could have carried all of the coins on his person and it was reasonable to look for the coins at his residence).
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
The application for the search warrant, “interpreted in a common-sense and realistic manner,” must be found to “contain information which would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the articles sought are located at the place to be searched.” -49 (Minn.1979); (“An appellate court reviews a district court’s decision to issue a warrant only to consider whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”).
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
A search-warrant application establishes probable cause if “the affidavit, interpreted in a common-sense and realistic manner, contain[s] information which would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the articles sought are located at the place to be searched.” , 748—49 (Minn.1979).
State v. Peterson 673 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 2004
State v. Peterson 673 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 2004
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002
State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
(recognizing that the “normal place” a defendant would be expected to keep stolen property he could not carry would be his residence).
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Saybolt 461 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Saybolt 461 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Thurston, 299 Minn. 30, 35
State v. Clobes 417 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Clobes 417 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court adequately instructed the jury on the statutory definition of first-degree assault and explained the elements of the offense, including “great bodily harm.”
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Novak v. State 349 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1984
Novak v. State 349 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1984
Minnesota cases dealing with the issue of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a search of a particular place include:
State v. Doyle 336 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
State v. Doyle 336 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
o the place where the sales occurred); (affidavit established probable cause to believe that stolen goods would be found at the defendant’s residence where a large *251 number of items were involved, items were type that could be of enduring utility to the taker, and police knew that defendant had kept at least one of the items himself); (police, who had probable cause to believe that defendant took $500 in coins, also had probable cause to believe that some of those coins would be found in the
State v. Hunner 328 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1983
State v. Hunner 328 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1983
State v. Flom 285 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1979
State v. Flom 285 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1979
State v. Yaritz 287 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1979
State v. Yaritz 287 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1979
where we stated in relevant part as follows: “[Defendant’s contention is] that the affidavit in support of the warrant application did not demonstrate the existence of probable cause for believing that fruits of the crime would be found in the house.