Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Collard, 414 N.W.2d 733.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Stephan Issac Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
688 (Minn. 1982) (stating that a police officer “could have searched the car for other evidence relating to the open-bottle violation” after observing the driver and passenger of a car drinking from cups that the police officer belie ved contained alcohol); -36 (Minn. App. 1987) (concluding that a police officer had 9 probable cause to search a vehicle when he observed an open container of alcohol in plain view, even when there was no sign that the driver had been drinking), rev. denied (Minn. J
State of Minnesota v. Shane Maurice McPike Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(considering a large sum of cash found in the defendant’s car among factors supporting his intent to sell), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Roy Hentges Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Facts that may contribute toward this “fair probability” include observable signs of impairment, 10 (holding that police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless vehicle search based in part on indicia of impairment), the presence of an open bottle, d 733, 735-36 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Donte Marquez Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2025
that a police officer “could have searched the car for other evidence relating to the open-bottle violation” after observing the driver and passenger of a car drinking from cups that the police officer believed contained alcohol); (concluding search of glove compartment was reasonable based on violation of open-bottle law); 735-36 (Minn. App. 1987) (concluding that a police officer had probable cause to search a vehicle when he observed an open container of alcohol in plain view, even when there
State of Minnesota v. Soloman Hosea Tomas Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lamar Mutcherson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Collard , review denied (Minn. Jan 15, 1988) (concluding the amount of cocaine and money seized, the a ddress book, packaging of the cocaine, and expert testimony provided sufficient evidence to support a finding of intent to sell).3 3 Mutcherson presents many arguments against this conclusion.
State of Minnesota v. Tou Pheng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(affirming admission of opinion that large quantity of drugs was indicative of sale because the testimony was “not expressed as a legal conclusion or in otherwise conclusive terms”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
28, 1990); State v. Collard , -36 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that a Tupperware container holding over $2,000 in cash, an address book with names of known drug dealers, and three packets of cocaine was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of intent to sell).
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
28, 1990); review denied (Minn. 3 Jan.
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(acknowledging that a “large sum of money” may establish intent to sell a controlled substance), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1 -36 (Minn.App.1987), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. McIntosh 641 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2002
State v. McIntosh 641 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2002
The court of appeals affirmed the district court on factor (b), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Carillo 623 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 300 Minn. 220, 222 , (police officer with on-the-job experience qualified as expert in fingerprint identification despite lack of formal training); State v. Peterson, 266 Minn. 77, 80, 82 , (experienced police officers permitted to offer opinion as to whether defendant was intoxicated); (narcotics police officer testified as to amount of cocaine that person is likely to possess for personal use); (police officer permitted to give expert opinion concerning accident r
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
State v. Williams 525 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1994
1018 , 98 L.Ed.2d 983 (1988); (admission on issue of intent to sell of testimony by a police officer as to various levels in cocaine trade, typical single dosage of cocaine, amounts typically sold on the street, and meaning of figures'found in notes on slips), pet.
State v. Schuette 423 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Schuette 423 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
However, pet for rev. denied (Minn. Jan.