Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 347 N.W.2d 796.

99 citing documents.

State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
State v. Clipper 429 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Clipper 429 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
1068, 1072 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
State v. Clobes 417 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Clobes 417 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
All that is necessary for a conviction of aiding in a crime is that “the accused plays at least some knowing role in the commission of the crime and takes no steps to thwart its completion.”
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Winston 412 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Winston 412 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
The entire conduct of the accused may be looked to for corroborating circumstances, and if from those circumstances the connection of the accused with the crime may fairly be inferred, the corroboration is sufficient.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , (footnotes omitted)
State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hole 400 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case, and “is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” ().
State v. Miller 396 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Miller 396 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minnesota requires corroboration “[bjecause the testimony of an accomplice is suspect and likely to have been given in hopes of receiving clemency.” see Minn.Stat.
State v. Swenson 396 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Swenson 396 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Pita-Iglesia 393 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Pita-Iglesia 393 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case and “ ‘is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.’” ().
State v. Gelhar 392 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Gelhar 392 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sheldon 391 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sheldon 391 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lee 391 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lee 391 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Miles 391 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Miles 391 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stafford 385 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stafford 385 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Corrobo *484 ration “is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” (citation omitted)
State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hayes 351 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1984