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. Lalli, 338 N.W.2d 419.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    see State v. Hill , d 824, 830 (Minn. 2025) (“Corpus delicti is Latin for the body of the crime.”) (quotations omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Ibn Marchone Abdullah Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Ibn Marchone Abdullah Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    1 Charles T. McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 146, at 194 (Robert P. Mosteller ed., 8th ed. Supp. 2022) (citations omitted); see also Holl, d at 807 n.6, 810 (citing 1 McCormick on Evidence § 145 (Robert P. Mosteller ed., 8th ed. 2020)); (citing McCormick on Evidence § 158 (2d ed. 1972)); State v. Hill, ____ N.W.3d ____, ____, 2024 WL 3490357, at *4 (Minn. App. July 16, 2024), petition for rev. filed (Minn. Aug.
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
    (explaining that we did not need to decide whether section 634.03 applied to a question regarding the sufficiency of evidence to indict under Minn. R. Crim.
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
    For example, we clearly stated that “[t]he requirement that the corpus delicti be established by evidence independent of the confession is codified at Minn. Stat. § 634.03 (1982).” But a few months later, our M.D.S.
  • A18-1999 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    State v. Lalli , 16 (affirming durational and dispositional departures, both relying on the offense-related factor of a “major economic offense”).
  • In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Glidden 455 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Glidden 455 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1990
    (aggregation used to give a first-time offender a large criminal history score and prison sentence) (aggregating multiple takings into a single charge rather than into multiple charges).
  • State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
    See, where the consolidation was done at the prosecutor’s recommendation.
  • State v. Vaughn 361 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Vaughn 361 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Zeigler 356 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Anderson 356 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Anderson 356 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Zeigler 356 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Similarly, the court upheld both a dispositional and an upward durational departure based on the same aggravating factor — that the defendant committed a major economic offense.
  • State v. Wittig 343 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Wittig 343 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Moore 340 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Moore 340 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1983