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. Griffin, 336 N.W.2d 519.

73 citing documents.

  • State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence “the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.”
  • State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (stating that a certified record is not an absolute requirement in determining a defendant's criminal history score based on out-of-state convictions).
  • State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
    (concluding state has burden at sentencing hearing to prove by a preponderance of the evidence defendant’s criminal history); (noting state has burden of proof on single behavioral incident issue).
  • State v. Robb 605 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robb 605 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2000
    See United States v. Anthon, 648 F.2d 669, 675-76 (10th Cir.1981); (holding evidence seized in plain view when officer accompanied arrestee to get shoes admissible because arrestee could not go barefoot in the snow).
  • State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
    (stating that one-person show-ups are a permissible form of identification if no "very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification” exists).
  • State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (rejecting absolute requirement for certified copies in favor of standard set forth in Rule 1005).
  • State v. Roehl 409 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Roehl 409 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    One-person show-ups are a permissible means of identification if there is no “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 , 97 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jackson 358 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jackson 358 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Larson 346 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Larson 346 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    *201 The plain view exception to the warrant requirement permits a police officer “to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband where the officer has a right to be.” (quoting Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 , 102 S.Ct.