Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425.

228 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 425, 427-28 (Minn. 1981) (concluding the district court erred in admitting the deceased victim’s hearsay statements that “indicated that she hated” appellant because the victim’s “state of mind was not an issue in the case”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
see also Swanson, d at 652 (“An accessory after the fact is not an accomplice.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“It is well -settled in this state that presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which a person’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.” d 425, 427 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
to contend that accomplice liability requires proof that the defendant encouraged the principal “to take a course of action which he might not otherwise have taken.” Ulvinen is distinguished on its facts.
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 1981) (finding hearsay statements by homicide victim that she feared her mother-in-law would poison her deemed not admissible).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
22 In urging us to conclude that the circumstances proved support an alternative hypothesis that he was “passively present” while his brother attempted to persuade the women to work as prostitutes
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
Compare State v. Parker, 282 Minn. 343, 355 , -41 (1969) (finding accomplice liability where the defendant intended his presence to aid and it did aid the perpetrators of a crime), (finding no accomplice liability where defendant told her son that it would be best if he killed his wife, but did not offer advice or assistance, or tell him how to avoid being caught).
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
Explained State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
in forcing the confinement of the Cl and the juvenile.” for the proposition that aiding and abetting “requires *612 something more of a person than mere inaction to impose liability as a principal.” However, “active participation in the overt act which constitutes the substantive offense is not required, and a person’s presence, companionship, and conduct
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
7 A. When we review whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, we determine “ ‘whether, under the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from them, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.’ ” ().
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
(state-of-mind hearsay extremely prejudicial); Minn. R. Evid.
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(reversing conviction for aiding and abetting of mother who did not actively encourage her son to murder his wife but merely passively acquiesced).
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(applying same standard to juvenile cases).
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(applying same standard to juvenile cases).
State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
We review “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” Moore, d at 360 ().
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
In asserting that the evidence is insufficient
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
State v. Souvannarath 545 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1996
State v. Souvannarath 545 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1996
“[Pjresence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which a person’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.”
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
As he points out, held that more than mere inaction or passive approval is required to establish aiding and abetting.
State v. Pierson 530 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1995
State v. Pierson 530 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1995
Liability is imposed “for actions which affect the principal, encouraging him to take a course of action which he might not otherwise have taken.”