Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tracy, 667 N.W.2d 141.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
intent to commit the crime or act that is the object of the conspiracy.” State v. Tracy , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
4 (providing that no further briefs may be filed without leave of appellate court); (stating party may not raise a new argument at oral argument) (citing State v. Bucher , (Minn. App. 2 Under Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-46 (Minn. App. 2003) (involving challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction for conspiracy to import a controlled substance).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(declining to consider argument raised for first time at oral argument).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellant points out that conspiracy is a separate, substantive crime from the uncharged assault, and that the elements of the assault need not be proved to establish a conspiracy, d 141, 146 ( Minn. App. 2003).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Tracy , (M inn.
A20-0592 A20-0594 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Tracy , (holding in part that a party cannot raise a new issue at oral argument that had not been briefed).
Lynn Baker Handelman-Seigel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Tracy , (holding in part that a party cannot raise a new argument at oral argument that had not been briefed).
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Tracy , , 146 (Minn. App. 2003).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
28, 2011); (stating that court of appeals erred when it addressed c onstitutionality issue not argued on appeal); (stating that party may not raise issues at oral argument that were not previously raised).
Russelle Anthony Wech v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Russelle Anthony Wech v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(declining to address an argument raised for the first time by the state at oral argument).
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The elements of the underlying crime need not be proven to establish conspiracy since the crime itself need not be proven to prove conspiracy.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Raymond Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Raymond Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The elements of the underlying crime need not be proven to establish conspiracy since the crime itself need not be proven to prove conspiracy.”
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The elements of the underlying crime need not be proven to establish conspiracy since the crime itself need not be proven to prove conspiracy.” d 141, 146 (Minn. App. 2003).
Clark v. Peterson 741 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Clark v. Peterson 741 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(stating that conspiracy does not require proof of underlying crime).