Caldwell v. State

61 Citing cases

  1. State v. Edwards

    No. C5-03-319 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 18, 2004)

    It is settled that a conviction may be based on the testimony of a single credible witness. Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Minn. App. 1984). Edwards contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted second-degree murder because it fails to establish the intent element of the crime.

  2. State v. Parks

    No. C2-00-263 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2001)

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently upheld convictions on the identification of a single witness. Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Minn.App. 1984). Identification testimony

  3. In Matter of the Welfare of T. L. R

    No. C5-00-631 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 26, 2000)

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently upheld convictions on the reliable identification testimony of a single witness. Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 828, (Minn.App. 1984). This court noted in Caldwell that a verdict may be based on the testimony of a single witness no matter what the issue, and that identification testimony

  4. STATE v. COX

    No. C9-98-1568 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 1999)   Cited 1 times

    "Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court." Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn.App. 1984) (citation omitted). This court, therefore, will not reverse the ruling unless the district court abused its discretion.

  5. State v. Randall

    No. C8-96-2528 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 1997)

    I. Possession of Ammunition Deciding evidentiary matters is within the sound discretion of the district court. Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn.App. 1984). Randall argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that police recovered 11,500 rounds of ammunition from Randall's residence.

  6. State v. Givens

    356 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that five months in county jail was not prejudicial

    Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); State v. Darveaux, 318 N.W.2d 44, 47 (Minn. 1982); Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 827 (Minn.App. 1984). The record shows the victim was told by police they had a suspect and wanted him to look at some photographs.

  7. State v. Barr

    No. A23-1816 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2024)

    Where, as here, the eyewitness had "ample chance to see" the identified individual from a close distance and remained with the individual for at least a matter of minutes, the observation is not fleeting nor limited and does not require corroboration. Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 829 (Minn.App. 1984); State v. Johnson, 811 N.W.2d 136, 150 (Minn.App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2012); Thompson, 414 N.W.2d at 583.

  8. State v. Washington

    No. A15-0031 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2016)

    Because a verdict can be based on the testimony of a single credible witness, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Washington's conviction. See Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Minn. App. 1984). IV. The district court's sentencing decision was not improperly influenced by Washington's decision to exercise his constitutional trial rights.

  9. State v. Henderson

    A15-0127 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    We may uphold a conviction even on a single eyewitness's testimony. See, e.g., Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Minn. App. 1984). Among other evidence, P.B. testified, "I saw him pull the trigger and I heard the sound."

  10. State v. Matthews

    A14-1274 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 18, 2015)

    Appellant was identified by T.K., who knew him and said that he "clearly saw" appellant's face during the incident. See State v. Thompson, 414 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating that even observation of less than a minute at close range is "more than a fleeting opportunity for identification"), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988); Caldwell v. State, 347 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that "[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently upheld convictions on the identification testimony of a single eyewitness"). Prosecutorial misconduct.