Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Crow, 730 N.W.2d 272.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).
Deondre Lashawn Bishop v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Mere presence at the crime scene does not alone prove that a person aided or abetted, because inaction, knowledge, or passive acquiescence do not rise to the level of criminal culpability.” State v. Crow
State of Minnesota v. Lannon Lavar Burdunice Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If no disagreement is expressed by the 11 jury, the verdict is complete, and the court shall discharge the jury from the case.” Id.; (“[A] verdict is not complete unless deliberations are over, the verdict is read in open court, and no dissent is expressed by the jury.”).
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Alan Jon Nagle Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The Due Process Clause requires that a defendant receive a fa i r t r i a l i n a f a i r tribunal before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.” State v. Crow , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Rae Holdingeagle Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the reco rd to determine whether the evi dence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permi t the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Crow , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Paul Valentine Jaros Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Donny Warren v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The Due Process Clause requi res that a defendant receive a fair trial in a fair tribunal before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome 9 of his particular case.” State v. Crow , (quotation omitted).
Browder v. State 899 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Browder v. State 899 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-59 (Minn. 2006) (requiring intentional participation of accomplice to extend criminal liability to accomplice).
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Defendant’s first conviction, which was set aside on appeal, was never a final conviction under the statute so as to bar the State’s prosecution of the other offenses arising out of the same conduct.”); (“An acquittal of an offense bars retrial for that offense, but double jeopardy does not bar retrial when a conviction is later set aside for trial error.” (citing United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671-72, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 1195 (1986))).1 Therefore, Minn. Stat. § 609.04 does not bar reprosecu
State of Minnesota v. Dragos Valentine Bogza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dragos Valentine Bogza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See 9 (providing that experts “may not testify to matters beyond [their] expertise”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Mere presence at the crime scene does not alone prove that a person aided or abetted, because inaction, knowledge, or passive acquiescence do not rise to the level of criminal culpability.”).
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“In a number of situations where jeopardy has attached, it may be interrupted or nullified in a manner that permits further prosecution.” 9A Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice § 48.3 (4th ed.2012); see, (stating that defendant’s successful appeal on basis of trial error does not bar retrial); White, d at 304 (stating that defendant waives double jeopardy claim on retrial after mistrial declared with defendant’s consent).
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“To impose liability under the aiding and abetting statute, the state must show that the defendant played a knowing role in the commission of the crime.”
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
-82 (Minn.2007) (affirming conviction and sentence for first-degree murder for an aider and abettor who “played a knowing role in the commission of the crime” and was involved to the extent that a jury could infer criminal intent).
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Expert testimony is admissible if it will assist the trier of fact in evaluating evidence or resolving factual issues.”