Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smith, 421 N.W.2d 315.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
It is true that Minnesota has jurisdiction only over offenses committed “in whole or in part within this state.” Minn. Stat. § 609.025(1) (2012)
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. C. P., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. C. P., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see also Minn. Stat. § 609.025 (2024).
Remona Lysa Brown, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Smith v. United States, 599 U.S. 236, 245 (2023) (“The Vicinage Clause differs from the Venue Clause in two ways: it concerns jury composition, not the place where a trial may be held, and it concerns the district where the crime was committed, rather than the State.”); (“[J]urisdiction is the power to hear and decide 5 II.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 52-53 (emphasis added); n.3 (Minn. 1988) (noting that the issue of whether territorial jurisdiction is an element of the offense and what the state’s burden of proof would be on that issue is unresolved under Minnesota law).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Jurisdiction “[J]urisdiction is the power to hear and decide disputes,” or stated differently, “it is the authority to apply the law to the acts of men.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Consistent with these constitutional principles, “some part of the crime charged must be ‘committed’ within the jurisdiction.”
Robert Webb, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jurisdiction depends on where the crime was committed.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jurisdiction “is the power to hear and decide disputes.” .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Based on Deputy Birt’s discovery of the registration’s expiration date, he could rationally have inferred that Carstensen’s vehicle registration may have been invalid, 4 4 While Deputy Birt was unable to enforce Iowa law, operation of a vehicle in either Minnesota or Iowa requires a valid registration.
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear and decide disputes.” State v. Smith
Carl Adam Mulvihill, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Minn. Stat. § 609.025(1) (2008); -21 (Minn. 1988).
In the Matter: Nita Maria Hicks, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
And, as we have noted, “if a state has jurisdiction over the crime, then a determination of the precise county (venue) for trial is less significant.”
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
A. Jurisdiction refers to a court’s “power to hear and decide disputes.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that, under common law, one state cannot enforce another state’s criminal laws).
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
16 “Jurisdiction” refers to a court’s “power to hear and decide disputes.”
State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although the issues of jurisdiction and venue are separate and distinct, we need not determine whether Hernandez-Espinoza made a venue argument in his principal brief because the venue argument fails for a different reason.
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
321 n. 3 (Minn.1988) (noting that the issue of whether territorial jurisdiction is an element of the offense and what the state’s burden of proof would be on that issue is unresolved under Minnesota law).
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-19 (Minn.1988) (discussing how location where crime was committed determines a court’s power to try and convict a criminal defendant).
State v. Simion 745 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 2008
State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes the right to a trial in “the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” To withstand constitutional attack under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions, “some part of the crime charged must be ‘committed’ within the jurisdiction.”
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See, e.g., Lange, 295 Minn. at 323 , d at 208 (judgment entered without service of process is unenforceable); -21 (Minn.1988) (order unenforceable because no territorial jurisdiction); State v. Minton, 276 Minn. 213, 217 , (order by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void).
State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
see generally, Annotation, Necessity of Proving Venue or Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Offense Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, 67 A.L.R.3d 988 (1975) (discussing venue and territorial jurisdiction).
State v. Blooflat 524 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Blooflat 524 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
County of Benton v. County of Stearns 503 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
County of Benton v. County of Stearns 503 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
*523 (citations omitted).
State v. Krejci 458 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1990
State v. Krejci 458 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1990
State v. Kramer 441 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Kramer 441 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-20 (Minn.1988) (no jurisdiction to prosecute an offense where no operative event occurs within the state).