Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stanifer, 382 N.W.2d 213.

23 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. B. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
F ifth-degree assault, however, is a n included offense of simple robbery because “[s]imple robbery is basically a theft accomplished by means of an assaultive act .” - 20 (Minn. App. 1986).2 We therefore reverse and remand to the district court to vacate the conviction for fifth-degree assault, while leaving the findings of guilt for that offense intact, and to correct the warrant of commitment.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“S imple robbery is basically a theft accomplished by means of an assaultive act.” State v. Stanifer
Minn. 2020
19, 1993); (“Simple robbery is basically a theft accomplished by means of an assaultive act.”).
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Minnesota courts have been liberal in admitting prior convictions for impeachment even when the prior crime is the same as the crime charged.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that a passing reference to prior contact with police, which did not necessarily imply that the defendant was a criminal, 9 did not deny him a fair trial, especially when the evidence of guilt was overwhelming).
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But we note that “Minnesota courts have been liberal in admitting prior convictions for impeachment even when the prior crime is the same as the crime charged.” (emphasis added).
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Schmitz v. Stransky 454 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schmitz v. Stransky 454 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(robbery is a crime of dishonesty under rule 609(a)).
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(aggravated robbery is a crime involving dishonesty).