Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782.

174 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Minn. Stat. § 626.08 (2014)
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The evidence necessary to support a finding of probable cause is significantly less than that required to support a conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
“[T]he act that constitutes the underlying felony may occur before, during, or after the killing,” (), but “[a] conviction for felony murder will be upheld only when the killing and the felony are part of ‘one continuous transaction,’ ” id.
State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Minn. Stat. § 626.08 (2014)
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When a warrant is issued, “our review is limited to ensuring that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Minn. Stat. § 626.08 (2010)
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zephaniah James Skarja Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zephaniah James Skarja Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Minn. Stat. § 626.08 (2012)
State v. Haukos 847 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Haukos 847 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The evidence necessary to support a finding of probable cause is significantly less than that required to support a conviction.”
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
(concluding that when the underlying felony and the killing are part of one continuous transaction, it is irrelevant whether the felony took place before, after, or during the killing).
State v. Yarbrough 841 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2014
State v. Yarbrough 841 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2014
State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
(noting that we "afford 'great deference’ to the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause" (citation omitted)).
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
degree with force or violence” is guilty of murder in the first degree); (noting that we look to “the manner in which a crime was committed, including the type of wounds the victim sustained and the condition and posture of the victim’s body, [as all of this evidence] can support a conclusion that the victim was killed while being sexually assaulted”).
McGlothlin v. Steinmetz 751 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 2008
McGlothlin v. Steinmetz 751 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 2008
Rather, we afford ‘great deference’ to the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause.”
State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Probable cause requires only “a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” -91 (Minn.1999) (quotation omitted); (“The standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is greater than probable cause.”).
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
“So long as the underlying felony and the killing are part of one continuous transaction, it is irrelevant whether the felony took place before, after, or during the killing.”
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
(“To ensure that the warrant requirement does not become so burdensome as to discourage the police from seeking review by * * * a neutral [magistrate], 'the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.’ ”) (quoting State v. Wiley, 366
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-88 (Minn.1999); Papadakis, d at 355 .
State v. Goodwin 686 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Goodwin 686 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2004