Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Walker, 310 N.W.2d 89.

59 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
While a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness who observes a defendant committing a crime, if the witness’s observation is fleeting or limited, it must be corroborated
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 543, 560-66 (Minn. 2024) (evaluating evidentiary challenges separately).
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. 2023
But if “the single witness’ identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, corroboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained.” -45 (Minn. 1984)
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
(holding that testimony from one eyewitness may be sufficient to sustain a conviction); Balandin, d at 21 7 (noting that our standard of review requires us to “assume the fact- finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with [its] verdict” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks om
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, if a “single witness’ identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, corroboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, if a “single witness’[s] identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, corroboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008), Jones broadly claims that “identification based on limited or fleeting observation requires corroboration.” But that case actually states that “[c]orroboration is required when a single witness’s identification of the defendant is made after only ‘fleeting or limited observation.’” Outlaw, d at 357 (emphasis added) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, corroboration is required to sustain a conviction when a single witness’ identification “is made after only fleeting or limited observation.” State v. Walker
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating if a “single witness’[s] identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, corroboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, if a “single witness’[s] identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, corroboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained.”
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Corroboration is required when a single witness’s identification of the defendant is made after only “fleeting or limited observation.”
State v. Landin 472 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1991
State v. Landin 472 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1991
(when a single witness’ identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, corroboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained).
State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
(admission of Spreigl evidence upheld though different offense occurred four and a half years prior to present offense in another state); (“While there were some dissimilarities in the manner of commission of the charged offense and the Spreigl offense, the offenses were quite similar in a number of ways and were also committed within a month of each other and both in the Twin Cities.”).
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
to a crime ordinarily is sufficient to support the jury's determination that a defendant committed the crime, "we have recognized that not all single eyewitness cases are the same and have empha *479 sized that when the single witness’ identification of a defendant is made after only fleeting or limited observation, corroboration is required if the conviction is to be sustained.”
State v. Taylor 427 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Taylor 427 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Fox 396 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fox 396 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(requiring corroboration if witness’ identification is based upon fleeting or limited observation).
State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[UJncorroborated eyewitness identification testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a guilty verdict * *
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Gobely 366 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1985
State v. Gobely 366 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 194 , *829
State v. Ward 361 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Ward 361 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Lande 350 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1984
State v. Lande 350 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1984
Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
Recently, this court stated: Although it is commonly stated that uncorroborated eyewitness identification testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we have recognized that not all single eyewitness cases are the same and have emphasized that when the single witness’ identification
State v. Schantzen 316 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982