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. Darveaux, 318 N.W.2d 44.

76 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    (concluding that drug evidence was properly admitted “as proof of the immediate episode for which defendant was being tried” where drugs found on defendant’s person, in his companion’s purse, and in his residence two days after a drug-store robbery were the same type of drugs stolen from the drug
  • William Dumont White, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    A conviction for simple theft is not a crime involving dishonesty.2
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • A18-1579 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Relying on Anderson, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that “where the record clearly shows that the defendant chose not to rely on his right to remain silent, but instead made statements to police, the prosecution may show and comment upon the defendant’s failure to relate to police crucial exculpatory statements recited by the defendant at trial.” -50 (Minn. 1982) (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Cf. Kendell, d at 608-09 (determini ng that evidence of shooting t hat occurred 9 moments after the original shooting was immediate-episode evidence); (determining that evidence of drugs found on defendant’s person two days after the alleged robbery was immediate-episode evidence of the robbery where the same type of drugs were stolen); Leecy, d at 282 (concluding that testimony about earlier threats was immediate-episode evidence becau
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See, e.g., State v. Darveaux , , 48–49 (Minn. 1982); , 838 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Sept.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    3 Res gestae means the events at issue or other events contemporaneous with them.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Rule 609(a)(2) contemplates admissibility of crimes involving “ac ts directly bearing on a person’s character for truthfulness”; dishonesty refers “only to those crimes involving untruthful conduct.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    For example, misdemeanor theft by shoplifting generally is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, while theft by swindle categorically is a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, (concluding that district court did not err in ruling that defendant’s prior conviction of theft by swindle was admissible under Minn. R. Evid.
  • State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (concluding that theft by shoplifting is not a crime of dishonesty or false statement), (concluding that theft by swindle is a crime of dishonesty or false statement).
  • Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (citing Nunn, d at 907–08; (holding that evidence of drugs found in the defendant's purse two days after drug store robbery was admissible as immediate-episode evidence where the drugs were the same type of drugs stolen from the drug store); (explaining that testimony about ea
  • State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    3 There is no indication that J.M.’s shoplifting involved dishonesty and therefore 2 J.M.
  • State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    (denying new trial because of counsel’s “deliberate failure to object contemporaneously, and his decision not to pursue a motion to strike”).
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    State v. Jones , , 22 (Minn. 2004); State v. Darveaux , , 49 (Minn. 1982); see also Rairdon v. State , , 325 (Minn. 1996) (denying new trial because of counsel's "deliberate failure to object contemporaneously, and his decision not to pursue a motion to strike").
  • State v. Hogetvedt 623 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hogetvedt 623 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    On appeal, the party claiming error in the district court’s ruling has the burden of demonstrating “both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error” and a “reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
    -48 (Minn.1982) (stating that "because the physical lineup was merely confirmatory, we find that it did not create a substantial likelihood of misidentification”).
  • State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (even use of post-Miranda silence is not unfair where defendant makes same statements to police); (use of pre-arrest silence is not unconstitutional), pet.
  • State v. Sims 526 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Sims 526 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1994
    (theft by swindle is a crime of dishonesty or false statement) (theft by shoplifting is not a crime of dishonesty or false statement).
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
    which held that aggravated assault was not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, where we said that “ ‘[d]ishonesty in this rule refers only to those crimes involving untruthful conduct.’ ” Id.
  • State v. Jones 500 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Jones 500 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Ross 491 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Ross 491 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1992
    (holding that theft by shoplifting is not a crime directly involving “dishonesty or false statement"), (holding that a conviction of theft by swindle is a crime directly involving "dishonesty or false statement").
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Morgan 477 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Morgan 477 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Ellis 476 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Ellis 476 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Bonynge 450 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Bonynge 450 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Kieley 413 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kieley 413 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (harmless error test for error in the reception of evidence not of a constitutional dimension).