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. Shoop, 441 N.W.2d 475.

106 citing documents.

  • State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
    d by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense.” Because an accomplice’s credibility is inherently untrustworthy, “[a]n accomplice instruction ‘must be given in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.’ ” ().
  • State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jackson 746 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2008
    borated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense.” Because an accomplice’s credibility is inherently suspect, “[a]n accomplice instruction ‘must be given in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.’ ” ().
  • In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    review denied (Minn. Sept.
  • State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
    In Lee , we applied harmless error analysis, and concluded that the duty to give an accomplice corroboration instruction applies regardless of whether defendant requests it.
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
    An accomplice instruction “must be given in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.”
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    State v. Manley , , 283 (Minn. 2003); State v. Baird , , 113 (Minn. 2002); State v. Shoop , , 480 (Minn. 1989).
  • State v. Davis 685 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Davis 685 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Lee 683 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 2004
    An accomplice instruction “must be given in any criminal case in which any witness against the defendant might reasonably be considered an accomplice to the crime.”
  • State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    When faced with an erroneous refusal to give jury instructions, a reviewing court must “examine all relevant factors to determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not have a significant impact on the verdict.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
  • Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
  • Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
    See, e.g., Dukes II, d at 254 ; (concluding defendant acquiesced to concessions); (concluding defendant’s immediate objection to the concessions proved lack of consent or acquiescence); , 480 n. 3 (Minn.1989) (citing Wiplinger as an example of an error that renders a trial “fundamentally unfair”); (citing Wiplinger as example of error that warrants a new trial); (citing Wiplinger for the proposition that
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    When faced with an erroneous refusal to give a jury instruction, the reviewing court must “examine all relevant factors to determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not have a significant impact on the verdict.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
    As to appellant’s argument that Carter’s testimony is insufficiently corroborated to support his conviction, we have held that accomplice testimony may be untrustworthy because of the risk that “[t]he accomplice may testify against another in the hope of or upon a promise of immunity or clemency or to satisfy other self-serving or malicious motives.”
  • State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Henderson 620 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Ferguson 561 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Ferguson 561 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
    a nod of the head was sufficient to constitute an adoptive admission under the guidelines established in Duplessie .