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. White, 332 N.W.2d 910.

24 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    see also Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Circumstantial evidence tending to show an intent to sell “includes evidence as to the large quantity of drugs possessed, evidence as to the manner of packaging, and other evidence.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “Intent to sell or distribute is usually proved circumstantially.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Gerald Steven Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Gerald Steven Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (holding sufficient nexus to the defendant’s residence in part because large amounts of marijuana were discovered on his land); (holding that nexus was established when the defendant went straight from his home to a drug sale immediately after arrang
  • State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
    Evidence tending to show an intent to sell or distribute “includes evidence as to the large quantity of drugs possessed, evidence as to the manner of packaging, and other evidence.” (concluding that there was sufficient evidence that defendant possessed marijuana with intent to sell when police found over 100 pounds of marijuana on his farm).
  • State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    the supreme court held that “[ejvidence tending to show [intent to sell] includes evidence as to the large quantity of drugs possessed, evidence as to the manner of packaging, and other evidence.” In that case, evidence of a large quantity *202 of marijuana that was “far in excess of that needed for
  • State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    See, (sufficient connection between illegal items and place to be searched, or “object-place nexus,” because the affidavit contained information that a sale of drugs actually occurred at the alleged dealer’s home); (sufficient nex *19 us for a warrant to search defendant’s residence because the affidavit stated that a large quantity of harvested marijuana had been found partially concealed on defendant’s land prior to issuance of the warrant and a search of defendant’s neighbor’s land resulted i
  • State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Collard 414 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Collard 414 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    As the trial court stated: “One would be a fool to conclude that Jenkins and Hoelscher intended to buy 15 pounds of marijuana from the 50 pound bale for their own use.” (intent to sell a controlled substance may be inferred from the quantity and packaging of a drug).
  • Novak v. State 349 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1984
  • Novak v. State 349 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1984
    Minnesota cases dealing with the issue of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a search of a particular place include:
  • State v. Monsrud 337 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Monsrud 337 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1983
    We have not overlooked the “open field”