DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Seefeldt, 292 N.W.2d 558.

48 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Omar Abubakar Maani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Omar Abubakar Maani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    at 892; (rejecting a sufficiency- of-the-evidence challenge and affirming an assault-with-a-dangerous-weapon conviction where “the victim did not actually see the weapon used,” but “testified that it was sharp and pointed like a knife and she believed that it was a knife[,]” and “[t]he pictures of the vi
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    The supreme court reached a similar conclusion in State v. Seefeldt , d 558, 560 (Minn. 1980).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (concluding that the jury coul d infer the nature of the weapon from the evidence presented).
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.K. 583 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.K. 583 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1998
    2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 ] (1984)
  • State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
    (relying on Ceccolini and Crews to uphold the admission of identification testimony claimed by the defendant to be the suppressible fruit of an unlawful arrest).
  • State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    (deputy had already made connection between defendant and specific crime).
  • State v. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Many factors bear on the application of this test, including “the temporal proximity of illegality and the fruit of the illegality, the presence of intervening circumstances, the purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct, [and] the likelihood that the evidence would have been discovered by legal means.”
  • State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    the supreme court discussed need: The only evidence in this case connecting defendant to the crime * * * was the eyewitness identification testimony.
  • State v. Cates 384 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cates 384 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (use and nature of weapon inferable from the evidence).
  • State v. Rodewald 376 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Rodewald 376 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1985
    2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)
  • State v. Raj 368 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Raj 368 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)
  • State v. Eppler 362 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Eppler 362 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1985
    2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)
  • State v. O'Brien 352 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. O'Brien 352 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled: The test used in applying the exclusionary rule in a specific case is “whether granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently dist
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • Washington v. State 340 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1983
  • Washington v. State 340 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1983
    (upholding conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon in case in which, although victim did not see weapon, it was inferable from the evidence that a dangerous weapon was used).
  • State v. Koziol 338 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Koziol 338 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1983
    1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980)
  • State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
  • State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Nading 320 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Nading 320 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1982
  • Meyer v. State 316 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1982
  • Meyer v. State 316 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Keeble 311 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Keeble 311 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Dent 308 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Dent 308 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Bellcourt 305 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Bellcourt 305 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Goar 295 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Goar 295 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1980
    Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in admitting a where we cautioned against admission of this kind of evidence, because of the danger that it might suggest involvement by the defendant in prior criminal conduct, but made it clear that such evidence is admissible if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice
  • State v. Gatlin 295 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Gatlin 295 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1980
    Por a general discussion of the principles involved in admitting evidence of this kind
  • State v. Garretson 293 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Garretson 293 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1980
    We hold that the evidence of defendant’s participation in the first robbery was legally sufficient — see State v. Parker, 282 Minn. 343 , — and that the evidence that a dangerous weapon was used was also suffi cient —