State v. Olkon (1980)

App. 1985) ("The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that trial judges should not define the term."); State v. Burton, 681 P.2d 646, 655 (Kan. 1984) ("This court has consistently adhered to the position that no definition could make the concept of `reasonable doubt' any clearer than the words themselves."); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 105 (Minn. 1980) ("Defining the term should be at the option of the trial judge even though a defining instruction is tendered.

App. 1985) ("The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that trial judges should not define the term."); State v. Burton, 681 P.2d 646, 655 (Kan. 1984) ("This court has consistently adhered to the position that no defini- tion could make the concept of `reasonable doubt' any clearer than the words themselves."); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 105 (Minn. 1980) 6 England and Australia -- with which we share a common lineage, the right to trial by jury, and the standard of …

The essential elements of the crime of attempt in Minnesota are: “(1) an intent to commit a crime, and (2) a substantial step taken toward the crime’s commission.” Mat *590 ter of Welfare of R.L.N., 371 N.W.2d 84, 86 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (citing State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981)).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn. 1980) (stating that inducement by a government agent is shown by “something in the nature of persuasion . . . by the state”).

See 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 3-3.6(b) (1979), (“No prosecutor should knowingly fail to disclose to the grand jury evidence which will tend to substantially negate guilt.”); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W. 2d 89, 105-106 (Minn.1980) cert denied 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

Inducement requires a showing that “the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn. 1980).

State v. Swanson, 498 N.W.2d 435, 439 (Minn.1993) (following State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 103 (Minn.1980)).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 106 (Minn.1980).

This court applies a deferential standard when reviewing a district court's evidentiary rulings. "[R]ulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court." State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980).

Transcripts should not ordinarily be admitted into evidence unless both sides stipulate to their accuracy and agree to their use as evidence. " State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 103 (Minn. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) ( quoting United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101, 105-06 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916 , 95 S.Ct. 1577 , 43 L.Ed.2d 782 (1975)).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

E.g., State v. Ture, 353 N.W.2d 502, 515-16 (Minn.1984); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101-02 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

“The essence of a swindle is the defrauding of another of his property by deliberate artifice.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 106 (Minn. 1980); see Minn. Stat. § 609.52 , subd. 2(a)(4) (defining theft by swindle as obtaining property or services from another person “by artifice, trick, device, or any other means”).

A person commits theft by swindle by “obtaining] property or services from another” by “swindling, whether by artifice, trick, device, or any other means.” Minn. Stat. § 609.52 , subd. 2(a)(4). 17 “The essence of a swindle is the defrauding of another of his property by deliberate artifice.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 106 (Minn. 1980); see also State v. Ruffin, 280 Minn. 126 , 168 N.W.2d 202 , 206 (1968) (“[T]he statute punishes any fraudulent scheme, trick, or device wh…

Evid. 1002, or they would lack proper authentication, see State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 103 (Minn. 1980).

To satisfy that burden, the defendant “must show ‘something in the nature of persuasion, badgering, or pressure.’” Id. (quoting State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn. 1980)).

Inducement requires a showing that “the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn. 1980).

For example, in State v. Olkon, we described the “essential elements of the crime of attempt” and stated that “the crimes of conspiracy and attempt each require ■ distinct elements of proof and are entirely separate crimes.” 299 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn.1980) (emphasis added).

“A defendant’s ready response to the government’s solicitation of the crime satisfies the ‘other adequate means’ basis for predisposition.” Johnson, 511 N.W.2d at 755 (quoting State v. Olson, 299 N.W.2d 89, 108 (Minn. 1980)).

Regarding inducement, “the evidence must show that the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn. 1980), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 954 (1981).

To establish inducement, “the evidence must show that the state did something more than merely solicit the commission of a crime.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn. 1980) (affirming district court’s dismissal of entrapment defense when “state merely provided defendant with the opportunity to commit the crime”). “[S]omething in the nature of persuasion, badgering, or pressure by the state must occur before the inducement element is satisfied.” Id.

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn.1980).

See, e.g., State v. Martin, 614 N.W.2d 214, 225 (Minn.2000); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981) (holding that rulings under rule 403 are committed to the sound discretion of the district court); Colby v. Gibbons, 276 N.W.2d 170 ; 175 (Minn.1979), reh’g denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 1979); Hiedeman v. Hiedeman, 290 Minn. 210, 217 , 187 N.W.2d *480 119, 124 (1971).

Moore , at 108 (citing State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn.1980) and State v. Juelfs, 270 N.W.2d 873, 874 (Minn.1978) for general rule that defendant found guilty of one count of two count indictment is not entitled to new trial or dismissal because jury found defendant not guilty of other count even if verdicts may be said to be logically inconsistent).

This court has found, “that the manner in which a Schwartz hearing is conducted rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

We apply a deferential standard when reviewing a district court’s evidentia-ry rulings. “[Rjulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980).

Minn.Stat. §§ 152.096, subd. 1, 152.021, subd. 2a, 609.175, subd. 2 (2000); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn.1980). *719 “Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the circumstances.” State v. Watson, 433 N.W.2d 110, 114-15 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10,1989).

We do know that “the manner in which a Schwartz hearing is conducted rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

P. 26.03, subd. 19(7); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 105 (Minn.1980).

“The district court is given great latitude in its evidentiary rulings. ‘[Rjulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court,’ and therefore we will only overturn a lower court’s evidentiary ruling if that court abused its discretion.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 742-43 (Minn.1998) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980)).

See State v. Benedict, 397 N.W.2d 337 , 340 n. 1 (Minn.1986); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 109 (Minn.1980).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn. 1980). 24 .

State v. Swanson, 498 N.W.2d 435, 439 (Minn.1993) (following State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 103 (Minn.1980)).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 104 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

See State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 104 (Minn.1989); State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 105-06 (Minn.1980) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (suppression of exculpatory evidence requested by accused violates due process)).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

Minn.R.Evid. 403; State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101-02 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 *795 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

To establish inducement, appellant had to produce evidence of “persuasion, badgering, or pressure by the state.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn.1980), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

In determining the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal matter, the reviewing court “ ‘must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict and decide whether the jury could reasonably have found [appellant] guilty of the crime charged.’ ” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 106 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981) (quoting State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 712 (Minn.1978)).

We hold those issues are without merit. a) The trial court did not err in allowing Norris’ 1985 conviction of theft by swindle to be used for impeachment purposes pursuant to Minn.R.Evid. 609(a)(2). 5 We have held that the “essence of a swindle is the defrauding of another of his property by deliberate artifice.” State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 106 (Minn.1980).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 101 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 107 (Minn.1980).

State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89, 102-103 (Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132 , 101 S.Ct. 954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981).