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. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308.

186 citing documents.

  • State v. Blais 379 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Blais 379 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Brown 376 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Brown 376 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Danielski 374 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Danielski 374 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Best 370 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Best 370 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Using well established principles of appellate review, the jury could easily infer from the evidence that appellant created an unreasonable risk and was aware of the risk created by her conduct in thrusting a butcher knife in close proximity into Richard King’s chest.
  • State v. Craig 359 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Craig 359 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    “The decision to grant or deny a motion for continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse of discretion.”
  • In Re the Welfare of V.R. 355 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • In Re the Welfare of V.R. 355 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Ibarra 355 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Hardy 354 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Hardy 354 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1984
    (upholding burglary conviction based solely on fingerprint evidence), and cases cited therein; see also Annot., 28 A.L.R.2d § 28 at 1150 (1953) (annotating cases upholding convictions based solely on fingerprint evidence).
  • State v. Ibarra 355 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Parker 353 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Parker 353 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1984
    McCullum, d at 91 ; State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nash 342 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1983
    which discusses the issue in detail, we held that the giving of the paragraph in question is not mandatory.
  • State v. Schmieg 322 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Schmieg 322 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1982
    954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 19 (1981) (upholding trial court’s decision not to give “morally certain” language in instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt); (upholding omission from instruction on circumstantial evidence of language that “all circumstances proved must be consistent with [guilt] and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion”).
  • State v. Hardy 303 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Hardy 303 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1981
    Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give the complete version of CRIMJIG 3.05 — instead, omitting the phrase that “all circumstances proved must be consistent with [guilt] and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion” in order for the jury to convict —