Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Thomas John Rassmussen, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Caldwell v. State , (evidentiary hearing); (new trial).
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
See State v. Hooper (Hooper I), d 31 (Minn. 2000); State v. Hooper (Hooper II), State v. Hooper (Hooper III)
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Arroyo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rather, corroborating evidence must be “weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rather, the corroborating evidence must be “weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.” (quotation omitted).
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “The denial of a new trial by a postconviction court will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion and review is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.”
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonnie Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonnie Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rather, the corroborating evidence must be “weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.” (quotations omitted).
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review the district court’s postconviction decision to deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion, and our review “is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the [district] court’s findings.”
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
See Hooper v. State (Hooper II), State v. Hooper (Hooper I)
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
Dobbins v. State 845 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2013
We review a postconviction court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion, and we review the postconviction court’s findings to determine if they are supported by sufficient evidence, Ferguson, d at 559 .
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Usee 800 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
mplice “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,” corroborative evidence must be “weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
We have explained that the “[t]he district court has ‘broad discretion’ when it comes to the admission of evidence” and we “will upset such rulings only if it can be said that the [district] court abused its discretion.” ().
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
Hooper v. State 680 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2004
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
“Corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of an accomplice must be ‘weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.’ ” (-67 (Minn.1988)).
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
Therefore, “corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of an accomplice must be ‘weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.’ ” (quoting Norris, d at 66-67 ).