Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vaughn, 361 N.W.2d 54.

52 citing documents.

Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
18 (referencing entrapment as a defense requiring the burden of production, “which requires the defendant to come forward and present a sufficient threshold of evidence to make the defense one of the issues of the case”); (concluding that a “[d]efendant did not make a sufficient showing of inducement” because “[t]he undercover officers merely provided defendant with an opportunity to commit the crimes” and “did not pressure or otherwise induce him to commit them”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Minnesota follows the so-called subjective test of entrapment.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
164, 165 (Minn. 1920) (upholding a conviction for the illegal manufacture of alcohol because evidence independent of the confession was provided); –57 (Minn. 1984) (affirming a conviction for transferring stolen property because there was evidence independent of the confession showing that the property was stolen, such as tags and labels still attached to clothing items); State v. Glaze , –60 (Minn. 1990) ( relying on evidence independe
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If the defendant establishes that he was induced to commit the cr ime, the “burden shifts to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense.” Bauer, d at 470
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
On the first element, the defendant bears the burden of production: “the defendant must raise the defense by showing by a fair preponderance of the evid ence—either through cross- 8 examination of the state’s witnesses or th rough defense testimony—that the government induced the commission of the crime.” State v. Charlton , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that the district court properly refused to award jail credit for time se rved in connection with a prior , unrelated conviction).
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
State v. Garcia 927 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Garcia 927 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
that the government induced the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Diego Hernan Suqui-Carchipulla Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Diego Hernan Suqui-Carchipulla Minn. Ct. App. 2017
that the government induced the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A confession is any statement by a person in which he explicitly or implicitly admits his guilt of a crime.”
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Entrapment To raise an entrapment defense, a criminal defendant must first show by a preponderance of the evidence “that the government induced the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Clark, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Clark, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION To raise the entrapment defense, a criminal defendant must first show by a preponderance of the evidence “that the government induced the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To raise an entrapment defense, the defendant must show “by a fair preponderance of the evidence—either through cross-examination of the state’s witnesses or through defense testimony—that the government induced the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Marcel Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Marcel Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
that the government induced the commission of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
See, (“A confession is any statement by a person in which he explicitly or implicitly admits his guilt of a crime.” (emphasis added)); State v. Propotnik, 280 Minn. 556, 558 , (explaining that the defendant’s statement to the store owner was not a confession within the meaning of
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
the supreme court defined “confession” as “any statement by a person in which he explicitly or implicitly admits his guilt of a crime.” Vaughn arose out of a sting operation, during which the defendant admitted to undercover police officers that he was in possession of stolen property.
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
As the person charged, appellant carried the burden of raising the issue of entrapment by a “fair preponderance of the evidence — either through cross-examination of the state’s witnesses or through defense testimony — that the government induced the commission of the crime.”
State v. Weber 470 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1991
State v. Weber 470 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1991
State v. Goar 453 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
State v. Goar 453 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Anderson 378 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Anderson 378 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(court refused to allow credit for probationary jail time served in connection with a prior conviction for an unrelated offense because jail time was not served “in connection with” the charged offense).