Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lowe, 68 N.W. 1094.

29 citing documents.

Carlos Heard, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Carlos Heard, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
at 78 n.3 (observing that the erroneous language in the pattern jury instruction purportedly was taken from this court’s decision in State v. Lowe, 68 N.W. 1094 (Minn. 1896) (citing 10 Minn. Dist.
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In articulating the proper mental state for third-degree murder, the supreme court reviewed caselaw discussing recklessness— State v. Weltz, 193 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. 10 Lowe, -96 (Minn. 1896).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
for the proposition that “third -degree [depraved-mind] murder may occur even if the death-causing act endangered only one person.” d at 653.
Minn. 2021
th the knowledge that someone may be killed.” This part of the instruction is an apparent effort to help jurors understand the statutory language “causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard to human life.” 3 As explained below, the additional guidance misc onstrues our precedent, including State v. Lowe , State v. Weltz , 193 N.W.
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v.Wahlberg , , 417 (Minn. 1980) (emphasis added) (first citing State v. Hanson , 286 Minn. 317 , 328-29, , 614-15 (1970) ; then citing State v. Lowe , 66 Minn. 296 , 68 N.W.
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 328-29 , -15 (1970); See State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , 68 N.W.
State v. Reilly 269 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1978
State v. Reilly 269 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1978
We have consistently construed the statute governing murder in the third degree as intended “to cover cases where the reckless, mischievous, or wanton acts of the accused were committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons, but were committed with a reckless disregard of whether they injured one person or another.” State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296, 298 , 68 N.W.
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
See, State v. Kopetka, 265 Minn. 371 , State v. Fredlund, 200 Minn. 44 , State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296
State v. Mytych 194 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1972
State v. Mytych 194 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1972
4 She cites in support of her contention State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , State v. Kopetka, 265 Minn. 371 , and State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285
State v. Hanson 176 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1970
State v. Hanson 176 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1970
The crime of murder in the third degree is committed only in situations “where the reckless, mischievous, or wanton acts of the accused were committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons, but were committed with a reckless disregard of whether they injured one person or another.” State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296, 298 , .
State v. Kopetka 121 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1963
State v. Kopetka 121 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1963
Among our decisions dealing with the first category are State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , ; State v. Weltz, 155 Minn. 143 , ; and State v. Shepard, 171 Minn. 414 , .
State v. Shepard 214 N.W. 280 Minn. 1927
State v. Shepard 214 N.W. 280 Minn. 1927
The defendant starts out with the subtle distinctions and technical arguments of the judges in Darry v. People, 10 N. Y. 120 , disapproved of in part by this court in State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , , and satisfactorily met in Hogan v. State, 30 Wis.
State v. Weltz 193 N.W. 42 Minn. 1923
State v. Weltz 193 N.W. 42 Minn. 1923
Speaking of our own statute, in State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , , it was said it was intended to cover cases where reckless, mischievous or wanton acts were committed without special regard to their effect on a particular person,- but with a reckless-disregard of whether they injured one person or another; and in *146 State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285
State v. Nelson 181 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
State v. Nelson 181 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
See State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , .
State v. Staples 148 N.W. 283 Minn. 1914
Distinguished State v. Staples 148 N.W. 283 Minn. 1914
State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296 , , cited by defendant, is plainly distinguishable.