Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916.

209 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To impose liability under the aiding and abetting statute, the state must show some knowing role in the commission of the crime by a defendant who takes no steps to thwart its completion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing State v. Belcourt, 312 Minn. 263, 264, ).
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court asked counsel for further research on “the discrepancy between the language in the burglary section and the proposed standard JIGs where the phrase -- 3 the statute phrase ‘directly’ --‘either directly or as an accomplice’ was left out of the proposed JIGs.” The state, requested to amend the first-degree burglary charge to include aiding and abetting.1 Counsel for the defense requested that the district court add the language of “either directly or as an accomplice” to the jur
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (“Whether a pretrial identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive turns on whether the defendant was unfairly singled out for identification.”).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
3 to argue that the daycare parent’s identification testimony should have been excluded under Rule 403 on the ground that it lacked reliability.
State of Minnesota v. Royce Ryan Teague Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Royce Ryan Teague Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “aiding and abetting is not a separate substantive offense.”
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “active participation in the overt act which constitutes the substantive offense is not required.”
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
But “active participation in the overt act which constitutes the substantive offense is not required.”
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
We have said that a person aids and abets another when that person plays a “knowing role in the commission of the crime” and “takes no steps to thwart its completion.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
-25 (Minn.1995) (“We have previously held that a person’s presence can be sufficient to impose liability if it somehow aids the commission of the crime.” (citations omitted)).
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
As we have stated: “Inconsistencies in the state’s case or possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.”
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
2243, 2251 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
g and abetting “requires *612 something more of a person than mere inaction to impose liability as a principal.” However, “active participation in the overt act which constitutes the substantive offense is not required, and a person’s presence, companionship, and conduct before and after an offense are relevant circumstances from which a person’s criminal intent may be inferred.”
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
-24 (Minn.1995) (holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict even though the record contains evidence of two different factual scenarios because the jury was free to disbelieve[ ] Ostrem’s alibi defense)
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
2243, 2251, 2253 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
( for the proposition that “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable”).
State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
Appellant’s is misplaced.
State v. Lushenko 714 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lushenko 714 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(citations and quotations omitted); (noting same test).
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005