Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Matter of Welfare of M.D.S., 345 N.W.2d 723.

60 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
See, (concluding “the State has met its burden of producing corroborating evidence” without analyzing the language of Minn. Stat. § 634.03); –14 (Minn. 2011) (same); State v. McLarne, 150 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 13; (stating that “not all or any of the elements had to be individua lly corroborated” to sufficiently corroborate a defendant’s confession).
State of Minnesota v. Jonas David Nelson 886 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonas David Nelson 886 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2016
d 723, 732 (Minn. 1984) (finding that a confession was not coerced when the minor testified that she would have cooperated even if alleged promises had not been made).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
It discourages coercively acquired confessions and makes the admission reliable.”
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972); release from custody, (citing Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 491 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
...”); -36 (Minn.1984) (requiring corroboration of statements which were incriminating but did not establish all elements of the crime).
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(citing State v. Azzone, 271 Minn. 166, 170 , ).
In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re CMA 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In re the Welfare of C.M.A. 671 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Anderson 666 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2003
State v. Anderson 666 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2003
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Minn. Stat. § 609.19 (2); (noting second-degree felony murder revised to apply to all but specific felony exceptions); 9 Henry W. McCarr, Minnesota Practice § 54.2, ' at 225-26 (2d ed.1990) ( and noting felony murder rule can be used with any underlying felony, including pr
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
d at 184 ; State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430, 440
State v. Pierson 530 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1995
State v. Pierson 530 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1995
See Parker, 282 Minn. at 356-57 , d at 641-42 ; -734 (Minn.1984)
State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
§ 609.05, the court’s reasoning in Parker is not altered where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, shows that the defendant’s actions did not constitute “passive acquiescence.”
State v. Branson 487 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1992
State v. Branson 487 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1992
See, -34 (Minn.1984); State v. Parker, 282 Minn. 343, 355
State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
State v. Bergeron 452 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
State v. Brant 436 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Brant 436 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Such evidence is described as independent proof of the “corpus delicti,”
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“Presence, companionship, and conduct, before and after the offense are circumstances from which the requisite criminal intent may be inferred.”
In re the Welfare of P.M.P. 392 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re the Welfare of P.M.P. 392 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kerkhoff 377 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kerkhoff 377 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Aarsvold 376 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Aarsvold 376 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the purpose of the felony-murder rule is “to isolate for special treatment those felonies that involve some special danger to *522 human life.” -30 (Minn.1984) ().
In Re the Welfare of L.R.B. 373 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of L.R.B. 373 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1985