Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hanson, 176 N.W.2d 607.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Pao Choua Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Beginning in 1970 and most recently in 2017 , we have cited the particular-person exclusion in at least 13 cases when rejecting defendants’ arguments that they were entitled to jury instructions on depraved-mind murder.
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
Our conclusion is not inconsistent with State v. Hanson , 286 Minn. 317 , , 614-15 (1970) (affirming the district court's decision not to instruct jury on the lesser-included offense of third-degree murder), in which we said: The offense [of murder in the third-degree] occurs only where death is caused "without intent to effect the death of any person," a phrase which under
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Inconsistencies “are a sign of the fallibility of human percep tion—not proof that false testimony was given at trial.” (quoting State v. Hanson , 286 Minn. 317, 355, ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Inconsistencies and conflicts “are a sign of the fallibility of human perception—not proof that false testimony was given at trial.” (quoting State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 355, ).
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 of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cf. State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 331-32, (declining to consider biased-juror argument on appeal because “challenge for cause .
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
Third-degree murder occurs when death is caused without intent to kill and “excludes a situation where the animus of defendant is directed toward one person only.” Id.; State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 328-29 , -15 (1970).
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
See Stufflebean, d at 317 ; State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317 , (permitting jurors to sit where one juror was cousin of sheriff and several jurors *569 had business relations with county attorney); State v. Jackson, 275 Minn. 462 , (former deputy sheriff).
State v. Cuypers 481 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1992
State v. Cuypers 481 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1992
See, (no merit to argument that rage over alleged rape that had happened earlier in the day provoked killing where killing occurred during robbery); (rage arising from knowledge that victim had previously abused sister insufficient provocation); State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317 , (passions arising out of knowledge of wife’s past infidelity cannot justify homicide).
Mutsch v. Rigi 430 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Mutsch v. Rigi 430 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 335
State v. Thompson 427 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Thompson 427 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317 , however, the supreme court observed: Inconsistencies and conflicts of this type are typical of trials where the witnesses are trying to reenact events which occurred in a stressful situation.
State v. Smith 384 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Smith 384 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 335 , (perfect consistency in trial testimony is suspicious).
State v. Smith 376 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Smith 376 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
‘They are a sign of the fallibility of human perception — not proof that false testimony was given at trial.’ (quoting State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 335 , ).
State v. Christenson 371 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Christenson 371 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The chips were not the product of a “search.” The chips were voluntarily given to the police because when asked if he wanted the chips back, Christenson replied, “no, you can keep them.” See State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317
State v. McGath 370 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1985
State v. McGath 370 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1985
Paul v. Hilger, 300 Minn. 522 , (juror had seen store detective who made arrest at a bar both frequented); State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317 , (juror a cousin of sheriff and had business relationship with county attorney).
State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 331-32 , State v. Thieme, 281 Minn. 47, 50-51 , State v. Jackson, 275 Minn. 462, 468
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. Stewart 276 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
State v. Stewart 276 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 325
Doan v. State 186 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1971
Doan v. State 186 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1971
In State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 332 , 176 N. W. (2d) 607, 616 , we said: “It is not entirely clear from this record whether the trial judge ruled on the admissibility of state’s exhibits A and B in conformity with requirements of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 , 84 S. Ct. 1774 , 12 L. ed. (2d) 908.
Fitch v. Bye 180 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1970