DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hill, 287 N.W.2d 918.

24 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    rson in control of the [car ] when the controlled substance was in [it]”); Porte, d at 308 (noting that “[p]roximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession” (quotation omitted) ); (explaining that a jury may consider flight before apprehension as suggestive of a defendant’s consciousness of guilt); (concluding that defendant’s acknowledgment of an expensive drug habit along with his unemployment was “strong evidence of motive” for robbery).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    7 effect the improper contacts [or material] had on their minds.” d 918, 921 (Minn. 1979).
  • City of Albert Lea v. Tasker 411 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • City of Albert Lea v. Tasker 411 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    DISCUSSION I To determine whether the absence of the alleged exculpatory items denied Tasker due process of the law
  • State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    -21 (Minn.1979) (improper contact between bailiff and jury uninfluential and insufficient as basis for new trial); -60 (Minn.1982) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for mistrial based on improper remark by sheriff, heard by at least six jurors); d
  • State v. Anderson 382 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 382 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Jurek 376 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Jurek 376 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Werner Co., Inc., (witness’ prejudicial conduct not considered when counsel fails to request Schwartz hearing).
  • State v. Trimble 371 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Trimble 371 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Beer 367 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1985
    "[T]he rule is clear that even though the jurors may testify concerning the improper [information], they may not testify concerning the effect[s] [it] had on their minds.” The proper procedure is for the trial court to estimate the "probable effect" of the prejudicial information on a "hypothetical a
  • State v. Campion 353 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Campion 353 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. McGill 324 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1982
  • State v. McGill 324 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Callender 297 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Packer 295 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Packer 295 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Callender 297 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Garretson 293 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Garretson 293 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1980
    Defendant’s final contention, relating to the imposition of a minimum sentence, where we held that a defendant convicted of a crime in which a dangerous weapon is used by his accomplice is subject to the minimum term part of Minn.Stat.