DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707.

115 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    [and] [c]orroborating evidence may be circumstantial or direct.” (discussing accomplice testimony (citations omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Corroborating evidence “must link or connect the defendant to the crime” and “must point to th e defendant’s guilt in some sub stantial degree.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
    The quantum of corroboration necessary is a fact-specific inquiry because it must "restore[ ] confidence in the accomplice's testimony," State v. Scruggs , , 713 (Minn. 1988), given that accomplice testimony is "inherently untrustworthy."
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “A grand jury proceeding is not a trial on the merits, and jurors do not dete rmine guilt or innocen ce, but rather determine if there is probable cause to believe the ac cused has committed the crime.” State v. Scruggs
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “In determining whether an accompli ce’s testimony is corroborated, ‘[t]he defendant’s entire conduct may be looked to for corroborating circumstances.’” Clark, d at 254 ().
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “Corroborating evidence 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 of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
    A “criminal defendant bears a heavy burden when seeking to overturn an indictment,” especially when “the challenge is brought after [the defendant] has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt following a fair trial.”
  • State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    In addition to showing a “compelling reason,” a petitioner “bears a heavy burden when seeking to overturn an indictment.” ().
  • State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “Corroborating evidence 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. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
    A “criminal defendant bears a heavy burden when seeking to overturn an indictment,” especially when “the challenge is brought after [the defendant] has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt following a fair trial.”
  • State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
  • State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    See, e.g., Ives, d at 713-14 (holding that prosecutor’s description of defendant as a “would-be punk” was improper); -16 (Minn.1988) (stating that prosecutor’s description of defendant as a “one-eyed jack” was not improper when it involved a legitimate reference to the evidence); (holding that prosecutor’s comment comparing defendant and her family to “little bugs and critters
  • State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
    er); (holding graffiti evidence admissible to show that gang affiliation was motive for murder was proper); -08 (Minn.1997) (holding prior kidnapping conviction admissible where kidnapping victim told the defendant that the subsequent murder victim had stolen drugs and money from the defendant); (approving the admission of prior bad acts where State proved that the defendant killed the witness to prevent the witness from providing the police with information regarding the defendant’s involvement
  • State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
    Because the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving dishonesty by accomplice witnesses, see Shoop, d at 479 , we have long held that evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony,” Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , d at 786
  • State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
    judge from proceeding in a matter where he has been disqualified * * * and ‘avoid[s] the possible] * * * waste of time, money, and effort required of all parties by a procedure which might involve two trials and possibly two appeals in order to adjudicate the issue.’ ” Azure, d at 725 n. 3 (quoting Smith v. Turnan, 262 Minn. 149, 154 , ) ( for the proposition that a writ of prohibition is often necessary because it is difficult to review pretrial procedures after a fair trial has occurred).
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    (characterizing evidence of other crimes or bad acts as “Spreigl” evidence).
  • State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Steward 645 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
    matter where he has been disqualified by a properly filed notice of removal, see McClelland, d at 219 , and “avoid[s] the possible] * * * waste of time, money, and effort required of all parties by a procedure which might involve two trials and possibly two appeals in order to adjudicate the issue.” Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149, 154 , (noting that a writ of prohibition is often necessary because it is difficult to review pretrial procedures after a fair trial has occurred).