DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Clark, 755 N.W.2d 241.

122 citing documents.

  • State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
    See, -11 (Minn.2009); -58 (Minn.2008).
  • State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
    We have explained that courts distrust accomplice testimony because the accomplice might have chosen to testify against the defendant “ ‘in the hope of or upon a promise of immunity or clemency or to satisfy other self-serving or malicious motives.’ ” (quoting Shoop, d at 479 ).
  • State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
    But the State must prove that the defendant had “knowledge of the crime and intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
  • State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
    The rule “reflects an inherent distrust of testimony from accomplices, who ‘may testify against another in the hope of or upon a promise of immunity or clemency or to satisfy other self-serving or malicious motives.’ ” (quoting Shoop, d at 479 ).
  • Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
  • Explained Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
    -54 (Minn.2008), that “corroborative evidence [of the accomplice testimony] does not need to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of the defendant’s guilt or sustain a conviction.” Accord Harris, d at 228.
  • 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. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
    We have observed that “the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving *581 dishonesty by accomplice witnesses.”
  • State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
  • In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.L.J. 772 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.L.J. 772 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (emphasis added); (noting that, for purposes of statutory interpretation, “shall” is mandatory).
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
    When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” ().
  • Coleman v. Ritchie 762 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    -53, 256-58 (Minn.2008) (concluding that the state presented legally sufficient evidence to support convictions of aiding and abetting first-degree murder and conspiring to commit first-degree murder, but reversing and remanding for new trial because the district court’s erroneous failure to instruct on accomplice