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. Keaton, 104 N.W.2d 650.

65 citing documents.

  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
    2d 803 (1970) ] the court said: ‘Premeditation is not a coefficient of time and can never be presumed from a given state of facts.’ “In State v. Keaton [ 258 Minn. 359, 363 , , 86 A.L.R.
  • State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hyatt 402 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 363
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 367
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , Bland, d at 382 .
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
    See State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Bland 337 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1983
    In State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , we noted that evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence and quarrelsomeness may be admitted in self-defense cases for the purpose of determining (1) whether the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm or (2) who was the aggressor.
  • State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
    See State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 365
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
    State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 363
  • State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
    State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 363
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
    Cf. State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 365
  • State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979
    In State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 363 , , 86 A.L.R.2d 649, 653 (1960), we stated: “ * * * It is clear that while the existence of premeditation may be inferred from all of the circumstances, it cannot properly be inferred from the mere fact of killing alone and can never be presumed in the sense that it must be found from a given
  • State v. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
    State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 363
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
    State v. Hembd, 305 Minn. 120 , State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
    See, State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 366
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
    Cf., State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , , 86 A.L.R.2d 649 (1960), which holds that premeditation cannot be inferred from the fact of the killing alone.
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
    2267 , 26 L.Ed.2d 803 (1970)] the court said: ‘Premeditation is not a coefficient of time and can never be presumed from a given state of facts.’ “In State v. Keaton [ 258 Minn. 359, 363 , , 86 A.L.R.
  • State v. Martin 261 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Martin 261 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1977
    1823 , 20 L.Ed.2d 663 (1968); State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , , 86 A.L.R.2d 649 (1960); State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
    or provocation on the part of the slayer; (2) the actual and honest belief of the slayer that he was in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony and it was necessary to take the action he did; (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for such belief; and (4) the duty of the slayer to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible.’ ” In an earlier decision, State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , this court addressed the issue of the admissibility of evidence of a specific crimina
  • State v. Hembd 232 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Hembd 232 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1975
    One of the best settled rules of criminal law is that there can be no crime unless there was in the defendant’s conduct a union or joint operation of act and intent to violate the law or a culpable negligence on his part.” We said in State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 365 , : “Whether the giving of an erroneous instruction constitutes prejudicial error must, of course, be determined upon the facts of each particular case.
  • State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Reps 223 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1974
    See, McElhone v. Geror, 207 Minn. 580 , State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , , 86 A. L. R. 2d 649 (1960).
  • State v. Matthews 221 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Matthews 221 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1974
    In State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 367 , this court stated: “* * * Evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence and quarrelsomeness may properly be shown for the purpose of determining (1) whether the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm, or (2) who, in fact, was the aggressor.
  • State v. Thurston 216 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Thurston 216 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1974
    te v. Graham, 292 Minn. 308, 313 , in which we alluded to the long-standing rule in Minnesota that in homicide cases the defendant claiming self-defense may offer evidence of the deceased’s bad character and reputation for violence “to prove that deceased was the aggressor and precipitated the confrontation.” In an earlier case recognizing this rule, State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 367 , this court stated that when evidence of the victim’s bad reputation is offered for the above purpose, “it is
  • State v. Graham 195 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Graham 195 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1972
    4 State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359 , State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 340 (438) (1860).
  • 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 v. Love 173 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1970