State v. Hollins
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PORITSKY, Judge. *
Appellant challenges his conviction of aiding and abetting a third-degree controlled-substance crime, asserting that the district court erred by (1) giving the jury an improper-inference instruction, and (2) allowing a police officer to testify about appellant “rolling a blunt” at the time of the sale. We affirm.
FACTS
On December 7, 2004, Scott Hoeft, a paid police informant working with Rochester police, entered a Rochester apartment and asked appellant Joseph Hollins for “a fifty,” that is, $50 worth of crack cocaine. According to Hoeft, Hollins made a telephone call…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. SpreiglSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State of Minnesota v. Dionte GosaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig OgrisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015