Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larsen, 442 N.W.2d 840.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Matthew Douglas Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
23, 2022); (venue challenge in court-trial context); Daniels, d at 647 (venue challenge in “Lothenbach trial” context); (venue challenge in jury-trial context); see also Eibensteiner, d at 144 (venue challenge in grand-jury context).
State of Minnesota v. Richard James Graf Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Direct evidence of venue is not necessary “if evidence of location within a county is admitted and no objection is made when the case is submitted to the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A defendant has a constitutional right to be prosecuted in “the county or district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 6
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Joseph Trombley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Larsen , d 840, 842 (Minn. App. 1989) (“When indirect evidence such as a street address or town name is offered during trial, a judge may take judicial notice of venue.”).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Mathew Hubert Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. Const. art. I, § 6; State v. Larsen
State of Minnesota v. Deonte Darnell Lawson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(d 840, 842 (Minn. App. 1989)), and venue as to subject matter jurisdiction, id.
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 But Minn. Stat. § 627.01, subds.
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minn. at 532, d at 96 (concluding that evidence was sufficient to prove venue where it demonstrated that offense occurred at “intersection of Buffalo Street and Highway No. 61” at “Benson Airport”); Bahri, d at 583 (concluding that evidence was sufficient to prove venue where it established that offenses took place in well-known area of city of Minneapolis); (concluding that evidence was sufficient to prove venue where “[t]hroughout the case witnesses referred to Lake Florida, which is located i
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. June 15, 1994)
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 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
(discussing venue as an element of the offense).
State v. Blooflat 524 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Blooflat 524 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(venue is an element of an offense that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt).
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minn. Const, art. I, § 6