Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Boyce, 170 N.W.2d 104.

141 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
First, in arguing for a “grave doubts” standard for reversal, Sledge cites four cases that use that phrase— specifically, —but he does not explain how those cases compare to his circumstances or how they support reversal of his convictions despite the presence of sufficient evidence.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
He also argues, that even before section 634.20 was enacted, we recognized under the common law that relationship evidence was excepted from Spreigl.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
He does, however, cite four cases that he says show that “the duty to retreat [arises] after a confrontation begins, or there is imminent danger, not before.” WL 2125770 (Minn. App. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Two years later, the supreme court repeated the connection between the common law and the two statutory self-defense 11
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Neal Curtis Zumberge, Minn. 2019
(discussing “evidence bearing directly on the history of the relationship existing between one accused of murder and the victim”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 413; -79 (Minn. App. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 256
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 247, 260, 1 15 (1969).
Helen Brown, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Boyce , 284 Minn. 242, 254, (discussing heat of passion provoked by conduct which “would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances”).
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 631 (citing State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 256, ).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
which bears directly on the history of the relationship existing between one accused of the [crime] and the victim.” State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 243, (discussing with approval the admission of relevant evidence “to illuminate [the] relationship [between defendant and victim] and place the incident with which [defendant] was charged in proper context”).
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
(quoting State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , ).
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260 , -16 (1969) (upholding admission of testimony, without notice, about prior “ill will or quarrels” between defendant and victim).
State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260 , (holding that the state need not give pretrial notice of its intent to use general relationship evidence).
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
(quoting State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , ).
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
See State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 256 , (evaluating defendant’s belief to determine whether “the ordinary reasonable person would consider killing necessary to avert the danger of death or grievous bodily harm”); see also State v. Clark, 264 Conn. 723 ,- 826 A.2d 128, 134-35 (2003) (describing the difference between subject
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. Haynes, 248 Minn. 545, 548-49 , -63 (1957); see also State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 261
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
e “killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or grievous bodily harm”; the “judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances”; the “defendant’s election to kill *278 must have been such as a reasonable man would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended.” State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , see 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 10.5(b) (2d ed.2003) (even wh
State v. Carney 649 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 2002
State v. Carney 649 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 2002
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254-55
State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 259-60
State v. Stewart 624 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2001
State v. Stewart 624 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2001
State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
We have stated, “it is the emotional status of the defendant which is of primary importance in determining whether a homicide is murder or manslaughter in the first degree.” State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254-55
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
See Pendleton, d at 270 (relying on State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 253 , ).
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
§ 609.20(1); State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by