Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Becker, 351 N.W.2d 923.

100 citing documents.

State v. Ohrtman 466 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Ohrtman 466 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of Edina v. Dreher 454 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
City of Edina v. Dreher 454 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Willenbring 454 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
A vagueness challenge not involving a first amendment freedom must be “examined in light of the facts at hand.” (citing United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 92 , 96 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Williams 451 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
316, 319 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975)
State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hyland 431 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State, Department of Public Safety v. ELK River Ready Mix Co. 430 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State, Department of Public Safety v. ELK River Ready Mix Co. 430 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In discussing a complaint alleging sexual abuse of a child, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: “The complaint must state the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” (citing State V. Oman, 265 Minn. 277, 282 , ).
State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(evidence determined to be admissible independently as Spreigl evidence); (defendant’s denial that she had sex with any of her children properly impeached by testimony of son not involved in charged offense).
State v. Normandale Properties, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Normandale Properties, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
316, 319-20 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975)
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 538, 552 , Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Gerring 418 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Gerring 418 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
316, 319 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975)
State v. Serstock 402 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1987
State v. Serstock 402 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1987
to that subdivision states “information supplied by a bill of particulars may be obtained by discovery under Rules 9 or 7.03.” Rule 9.01 allows “defense counsel to inspect and reproduce such [grand jury] witnesses’, relevant written or recorded statements and any written summaries within (the prosecutor’s) knowledge * * * of relevant oral statements made by such witnesses * * this court found that a defendant was not prejudiced by a complaint failing to state the specific time period in which mu
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Serstock 390 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-27 (Minn.1984) (defendant not prejudiced by complaint which failed to state specific time period in which multiple criminal acts occurred because defendant availed herself of discovery opportunities which revealed all acts involved).
State v. Scheu 392 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Scheu 392 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kager 382 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kager 382 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Williams 363 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Williams 363 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Rud 359 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1984
State v. Rud 359 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1984
The contention of the defendants in this case that the complaint was too vague and uncertain as to the dates of the offenses to allow the defendants to defend themselves is a contention that we have dealt with in a number of cases, (holding that in a prosecution for intrafamilial sexual abuse on the basis of multi-pie acts over an extended period of time, Minn. Stat. § 609.3641 , subd.
State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Fader 358 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1984
State v. Fader 358 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1984
State v. Rud 352 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rud 352 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 5-7, at 926-927 (Minn. July 13, 1984) and cases cited therein.