Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Oates, 611 N.W.2d 580.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-87 (Minn. App. 2000) (holding that motive to commit a crime supplies corroboration for eyewitness identifications).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 580, 586-87 (Minn. App. June 20 , 2000) (noting that eyewitness identifications had been 8 corroborated in part by evidence that the defendant had some motive to commit the crime), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Clear and convincing evidence may be established by the testimony of a single witness.” State v. Oates
Lovell N. Oates, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Oates , -83 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-83 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(finding sufficient evidence of intent to kill where defendant fired a single shot at a police officer from 12 feet away); (finding sufficient evidence of intent to kill where defendant fired up to seven shots, in close quarters in a crowded bar, after putting a gun to the head of the intended victim), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
(“There is no need to instruct the jury that a [suspect] fleeing the scene is displaying a ‘consciousness of guilt.’ ”).
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
Of Litzau, d at 186 & n. 7, 187; Olson, d at 215-16 ; (“There is no need to instruct the jury that a [suspect] fleeing the scene is displaying a ‘consciousness of guilt.’ ”).
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(affirming separate sentences for multiple assaults on multiple victims because the defendant fired “several shots in a crowded bar, with intent to kill one individual but heedless of the mortal risk posed to countless others”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Marquardt, d at 850-51 (affirming separate sentences for five counts of aggravated assault where the defendant planted a firebomb at a house while five residents were at home); (affirming the imposition of multiple sentences for multiple assaults on multiple victims during an incident in a nightclub); Lundberg, d at 592 (affirming the imposition of multiple sentences where two victims, one a person and one a business, suffered loss as a result of the defendant’s
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Consistent with rule 404(b), evidence of a defendant’s prior acts may be admitted for the purpose of “illuminating the relationship” of the defendant and the victim and “placing the incident with which defendant was charged in proper context.” (quotations and citation omitted)