DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gowdy, 113 N.W.2d 578.

35 citing documents.

  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70, 75
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
    While we have long recognized that premeditation requires no specific period of time for deliberation, 4 State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70, 75 , or extensive planning, d at 664 , the state must always prove that, after the defendant formed the intent to kill, some appreciable time passed during which the consideration, planning, preparation or determination required by Minn. Stat. § 609.18 prior t
  • State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    § 609.185, incorporates the traditional doctrine of “transferred intent.” Specifically, the statute provides that one is guilty of first-degree murder if one “[c]auses the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another.” See State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , (making it clear that the defendant need not have premeditated the death of the person who was killed, as long as he premeditated the death of someone.)
  • State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
    § 609.185, incorporates the traditional doctrine of “transferred intent.” Specifically, the statute provides that one is guilty of first-degree murder if one “[clauses the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another.” See State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , (making it clear that the defendant need not have premeditated the death of the specific person who was killed, as long as he premeditated the death of someone).
  • State v. Kirch 322 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kirch 322 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1982
    It is well-established that, because premeditation is a product of the mind, it is incapable of direct proof: “Premeditation may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the homicide.” State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70, 75 , (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70, 74-75
  • Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
  • Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70, 74
  • State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Neumann 262 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1978
    See, State v. Hare, 278 Minn. 405 , 4 State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70
  • State v. King 176 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1970
  • State v. King 176 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1970
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , 113 N. W. (2d) 578 ; State ex rel.
  • State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
    To implant in the mind of this jury a basis of prejudice, so that the jury will close its eyes to the law and to the facts.” 3 See, State v. Campbell, 281 Minn. 1, 12 , 161 N. W. (2d) 47, 55 ; State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 364 , 104 N. W. (2d) 650, 655 ; State v. Hare, 278 Minn. 405, 407 , 145 N. W. (2d) 820 , 822; State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70, 74 , 113 N. W. (2d) 578, 581 .
  • State Ex Rel. Gowdy v. Tahash 169 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1969
  • State Ex Rel. Gowdy v. Tahash 169 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1969
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , 113 N. W. (2d) 578 .
  • Chapman v. State 162 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1968
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
  • In Re Welfare of Hitzemann 161 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1968
    (2d) 846 ; State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , 113 N.W.
  • State v. Campbell 161 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Campbell 161 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1968
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , 113 N. W. (2d) 578 ; State ex rel.
  • State v. Hare 154 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Hare 154 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1967
    State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , 113 N. W. (2d) 578 ; 1 State ex rel.
  • State Ex Rel. Fruhrman v. Tahash 146 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1966
  • State Ex Rel. Fruhrman v. Tahash 146 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1966
    See, State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , 113 N. W. (2d) 578 .
  • State v. Ware 126 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Ware 126 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1964
    2 State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , 104 N. W. (2d) 650 , 86 A. L. R. (2d) 649; State v. Gowdy, 262 Minn. 70 , 113 N. W. (2d) 578 ; State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , 48 N. W. (2d) 44 ; State v. Bucanis, 26 N. J. 45, 138 A. (2d) 739, 73 A. L. R. (2d) 760; 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 267; 9 Dunnell, Dig.