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. Larson, 358 N.W.2d 668.

29 citing documents.

  • Nathan Christopher Braun, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “For a burglary conviction to stand, the state must prove that a defendant intended to commit some independent crime other than trespass.” State v. Colvin , (“[T]he state has to do more than establish an intent to commit the crime of trespass in order to obtain a burglary conviction or a conviction of possessing burglary tools.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • A17-1841 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    at 452 (d 668, 670 (Minn. 1984)).
  • Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    (violation of an OFP); (trespass).
  • Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    In support of his position, appellant relies on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s and Colvin .
  • State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
    (stating that trial court was justified in giving a no-adverse-inference instruction because defense counsel’s closing argument opened the door to it); (dictum) (stating that trial courts should not comment on a defendant’s decision not to testify unless th
  • State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Clow 600 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Clow 600 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    (even as to the technical element of venue, the defendant’s failure to object does not relieve the state of its burden of proof).
  • State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Thompson 430 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Thompson 430 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1988
    that the trial court there was justified in giving such an instruction over the defendant’s objection since defense counsel “opened the door” by his closing argument, we also said, “Notwithstanding Lakeside , we believe that the trial court generally should leave it up to the defendant and his attorne
  • State v. Thompson 427 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Thompson 427 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (emphasis added) (citing State v. Sandve, 279 Minn. 229 , ); (trial court should generally “leave it up to the defendant and his attorney to decide whether they want such an instruction.”) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Shamp 427 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Shamp 427 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Roehl 409 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Roehl 409 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1987