Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister, 862 N.W.2d 49.

78 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. M. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. M. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
liability, the jury may consider circumstantial evidence, “including the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, a close association with the principal offender before 20 and after the crime, a lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and flight from the scene of the crime with the principal offender.”
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
(stressing that it is rare for the State to prove state of mind through direct evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ossessed the requisite state of mind for accomplice liability, the jury may consider circumstantial evidence, “including the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, a close association with the principal offender before and after the crime, a lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and flight from the scene of the crime with the principal offender.”
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘[I]ntentionally aids’ includes two important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” 7 Because Virginia Carlson was convicted of felony theft by swindle, the state was required to prove an additional element: that “the value of the property or services stolen is more than $35,000.” Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘[I]ntentionally aids’ includes two important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that a killing “furthered the commission of the robbery by facilitating the escape of the three men, preventing McMillan from later identifying his assailants, and preventing the possibility of retaliation.”); (“[T]he record s
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Indeed, the supreme court recently stated, “It is rare for the State to establish a defendant’s state of mind through direct evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015