Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jackson, 358 N.W.2d 681.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Robert Kappon Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 572-74; see also Griffin, d at 525 (explaining that, despite the absence of a certified copy of conviction, the state introduced sufficient information to meet its burden of proving that the defendant had a prior conviction); -83 (Minn. App. 1984) (explaining that in-court statements from probation officer outlining efforts undertaken to prove conviction provided sufficient “[o]ther evidence of the contents of official records” in the absence of a certified copy of a conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Devell Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Devell Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Paul Michael Condon Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although the state may substantiate out -of- state offenses with credible testimony from a probation officer, the state offered no testimony or other evidence to support the PSI’s report of Condon’s out-of-state offenses.
State of Minnesota v. Richard Eugene Ball, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Walter Pierre Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Walter Pierre Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(describing the difference between a burden of production and a burden of persuasion); d 681, 683 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that the state must establish the validity of a prior conviction “by a fair preponderance of the evidence”).
State of Minnesota v. Loren Clyde Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Loren Clyde Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3 evidence that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involved, and the crimes constituted felonies in Minnesota.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Abshir Abdullahi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(concluding the state had met its burden by offering “considerable documentation” of the defendant’s prior conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Douglas Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. James Darnell Posey Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thurmon Keltner Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Jackson , -83 (Minn. App. 1984).
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Windell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Compare State v. Griffin , (hold ing that the state is not required to supply certified copies of the conviction when it presented considerable documentation) and State v. Jackson , (determining that the state sufficiently proved an out- of-state conviction when a probation officer provided the district court with advice and unsworn testimony regarding the conviction in lieu of a certified copy of the out -of-state conviction) with Maley, d at 710-13 (determining
State of Minnesota v. Scott Bernard Sheffield Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Similarly, we determined that the state sufficiently proved an out-of-state conviction when a probation officer provided the district court with advice and unsworn testimony regarding his conviction, although the state did not present a certified copy of the out-of-state conviction.
State of Minnesota v. Archester Rodgers, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Archester Rodgers, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Id.; (holding that, despite lack of certified copy of California felony conviction, probation officer’s unsworn “advice and testimony” at sentencing hearing proved conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Luis Armando Cubas Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Armando Cubas Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
1005 1977 comm, cmt.; (holding a probation officer’s statement to the court detailing his search for defendant’s foreign felony record to be sufficient under Rule 1005 to support a prior conviction).
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“The state has the burden of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions used to determine a defendant’s criminal history score.” (citation omitted).
State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the court stated: The state has the burden of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions used to determine a defendant’s criminal history score.
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
This court has held: “Other evidence of contents includes oral testimony.” (Minn.Ct.