Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hager, 727 N.W.2d 668.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gerald Cortez Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-78 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding that a person’s “unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction” of receiving stolen property).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Arthur Mollenhauer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction,” (quotation omitted), and argues that the opposite should be inferred here—that “the larger the gap in time between the theft and possession, the less likely knowledge can be inferred.” Again, we are not convinced.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Maurice Chouinard Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Caselaw establishes that “[a]n individual’s unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) ().
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Mark Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-78 (Minn. App. 2007) (“An individual’s unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a .
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Tracey Dee Keyes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jermaine Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jermaine Chamberlain Minn. Ct. App. 2024
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Gunderson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Gunderson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Patrick Allen Weston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Patrick Allen Weston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (noting that “Minnesota caselaw requires that the words or acts of the accused have the effect of a physical obstruction”).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Allen Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Edbin Jose Coreas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.’” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) ().
State of Minnesota v. Kevin John LeClair Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 731; 10 (Minn. App. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Laura Cerda Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-77 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding that the district court’s plain error in failing to instruct that an obstruction-of-legal- process conviction requires “physical” obstruction affected Hager’s substantial rights when the jury’s questions during its deliberations reflected its confusion on that topic).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Rossbach Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Michael Beach Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Knowledge that the property was stolen may be proven by circumstantial evidence,” Peterson, d at 95, and “[a]n individual’s unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Hirman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.’” –78 (Minn. App. 2007) (quoting State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188, ).
State of Minnesota v. Adaiah Deontraie Townsend 872 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adaiah Deontraie Townsend 872 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This amendment “reduced the state’s burden of proof by allowing the prosecutor to show that the accused has reason to know that a 5 crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(explaining elements of aiding offender).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 731; (stating that Minnesota courts have “recognized the distinction between the basic elements of the crime and the facts underlying those basic elements”).