Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lemire, 315 N.W.2d 606.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
While corroborating evidence must tend to point to the defendant ’s guilt, it need not corroborate “every point or element of the crime.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
We have “long held that evidence is sufficient to corrob orate an accomplice’s testimony when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony.” Clark , d at 253 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (noting that accomplice testimony does not need to “be corroborated on every point or element of the crime”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Lemire , -12 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The precise quantum of corroborative evidence needed necessarily depends on the circumstances of each case,” and the accomplice’s testimony need not be corroborated “on every point or element of the crime.” Clark, d at 253-54 (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But, corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case of guilt, or address each element of the crime
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ray Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ray Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An accomplice’s testimony need not be corroborated “on every point or element of the crime.” 610 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vasquez 776 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
“It is not necessary that [an accomplice’s] testimony be corroborated on every point or element of the crime.”
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
Moore, d at 361 (citations omitted); Andrews, d at 728 (Minn.1986) ().
State v. Landro 504 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1993
State v. Landro 504 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1993
Corroborating evidence is sufficient “if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
State v. Jinkerson 469 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Jinkerson 469 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
* * * Corroboration does not require the establishment of a prima facie case.” (citations omitted).
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Further, corroboration is sufficient if it “restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.”
State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
“[It] indicates a preexisting reflection and deliberation involving more than a mere intent to kill.”
State v. Cox 322 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1982
State v. Cox 322 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1982