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. Flournoy, 535 N.W.2d 354.

25 citing documents.

  • Minn. 2021
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “But when ‘the facts of the case are undisputed and there is only one inference to be drawn as to whether or not the witness is an accomplice, then it is a question for the court to decide.’” Jackson, d at 898 ().
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “But when ‘the facts of the case are undisputed and there is only one inference to be drawn as to whether or not the witness is an accomplice, then it is a question for the court to decide.’” Jackson, d at 898 ().
  • State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
    is one of fact for the jury.’ ” ().
  • State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
    But when “the facts of the case are undisputed and there is only one inference to be drawn as to whether or not the witness is an accomplice, then it is a question for the court to decide.”
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
    (affirming conviction in the Bowles murder case); (affirming conviction for murder of a witness); (affirming conviction for Bowles); (same).
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    -51 (Minn.1998); (Flournoy II); (Flournoy I); Bowles, d at 525 .
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
    If the facts are undisputed, the district court determines whether a witness might reasonably be considered an accomplice, but if the “evidence is disputed or susceptible to different interpretations, then the question whether the witness is an accomplice is one of fact for the jury.” (citing State v. Jensen, 289 Minn. 444, 447 , ).
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
    If the facts are undisputed, the district court determines whether a witness might reasonably be considered an accomplice, but if the “evidence is disputed or susceptible to different interpretations, then the question whether the witness is an accomplice is one of fact for the jury.”
  • State v. Davis 685 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Davis 685 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    In determining whether a witness is an accomplice for the purpose of an accomplice instruction, the inquiry is whether the witness “could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
    If the facts of the case are undisputed and there is only one inference to be drawn as to whether the witness is an accomplice, the court should make the determination; but “if the evidence is disputed or susceptible to different interpretations, then the question whether the witness is an accomplice is one of fact for the jury.”
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
  • Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998