 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Amble, A06-1597,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an informant told an investigator that defendant was involved in the sale and distribution of marijuana and prescription pills, the investigator corroborated the information. The search warrant based on the informant's report was supported by probable cause; the search-warrant application did not contain a material misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| State v. Bjork, A06-809,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in sentencing defendant for both obstructing arrest/legal process and first-degree driving while impaired under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 as defendant was trying to escape from an officer for a crime for which he was stopped; this was generally considered to be part of the same behavioral incident.
|
|||||
| State v. Blayon, A05-1541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal sexual conduct case, evidence that appellant masturbated in front of an officer while in custody was properly admitted under Minn. R. Evid. 401 because the issue was whether appellant's sexual intercourse with the victim was nonconsensual; the inference he wanted the officer to draw was that he did not have to force sex upon a woman.
|
|||||
| State v. Jackman, A06-1192,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a police officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop appellant--the license plate number did not match the vehicle--and the evidence was seized in a valid search incident to arrest after appellant gave the officer false information, the district court did not err by denying appellant's suppression motion.
|
|||||
| State v. Jacobson, A06-1376,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant made a left turn against a red light, had watery and bloodshot eyes, admitted having one drink, and refused to perform field sobriety tests, the state trooper had probable cause to arrest her for DWI. Defendant was not entitled to suppress methamphetamine found on her person during a search incident to arrest.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnson, A06-1284,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the trial court could convict and sentence defendant for the criminal-sexual-conduct offense committed during the burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.585, and as Minn. Stat. § 609.035 allowed for conviction and sentencing for the burglary offense committed during the sexual assault, defendant's consecutive sentences were proper.
|
|||||
| State v. Mancini, A05-1910,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's assault case, although it was error under the Sixth Amendment to allow the victim's testimonial statements because there was no ongoing emergency, the error was harmless; there were multiple witnesses who testified at trial that defendant assaulted the victim, his estranged wife, and defendant did not dispute that fact.
|
|||||
| State v. Marlowe, A06-1806,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred by imposing a lifetime conditional-release term, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 7(b) (2005), because defendant's offense was committed before the statute took effect, and in treating a previous adjudication of delinquency as a previous sex-offense conviction for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 (2002).
|
|||||
| State v. McMurlyn, A06-1027,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, August 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of felony harassment under Minn. Stat. § 609.749 because, in light of the nature of the phone conversations and the history of the parties' relationship, a jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant knew or had reason to know that his conduct would have caused the complainant to feel terrorized.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
