DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

141 citing documents.

  • State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    The court, however, did not hold that the self-defense factors set out in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 253 , are inapplicable to defense of dwelling.
  • State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
    284 Minn. 242, 253-57 , -14 (1969).
  • State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
    These standard instructions include the specific language from section 609.065 and then add additional language from this court’s decision in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 253
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
    1 (1994); State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    Both it and the “justification statutes evince a legislative intent to excuse or mitigate a homicide where a defendant behaves as would a reasonable person.” 9 Buchanan, d at 549 (citing State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 253-54 , ).
  • State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    I. McCuiston requested a jury instruction that combined the “defense of dwelling” language from the statute and pattern jury instruction with the conditions for self-defense set out in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260 , (emphasis added); see also Spreigl, 272 Minn. at 490 -91 n. 1, d at 169 n. 1.
  • Sanford v. State 499 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Sanford v. State 499 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    at 585 (citing State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , ).
  • State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Bauer 471 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Bauer 471 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    See, e.g., State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 255-60 , -15 (1969).
  • State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , (citing Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , see Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
    Richardson, d at 662 (citing State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , ).
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 253 , (one element of self-defense is reasonableness of defendant’s response under the circumstances).
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (quoting State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , ).
  • State v. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (2) The passion must have been provoked by words and acts of another such as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances.” State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In Black , there the court quoted with approval its decision in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , : We do not intend by our decision in State v. Spreigl * * * to require a “Spreigl notice” as a condition to the admissibility of evidence bearing directly on the history of the relationship existing between one accused of murder and the victim.
  • State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    7.02, to notice this incident as “other crimes evidence.” State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , that the State was obligated to comply with defendant’s discovery demand pursuant to Rule 9.
  • State v. Kanniainen 367 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kanniainen 367 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260
  • State v. Johnsen 364 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Johnsen 364 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 255 , d *497 104, 112 (1969).
  • State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
    8 Diamond, 308 Minn. 444, 448 , ; State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260 , -16 (1969).
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    § 609.065 (1982) justifies the intentional taking of the life of another when “necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes him or another to great bodily harm or death....” The elements of justification for homicide were stated in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254 , : At least three conditions must occur to excuse or justify homicide under §§ 609.-06 and 609.065: (1) The killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert deat
  • State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984