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. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    citing State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Austin 332 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Austin 332 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1983
    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
    In State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , we held that three conditions must concur to excuse or justify the use of deadly force under sections 609.06 and 609.065: (1) The killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or grievous bodily harm.
  • State v. Dodis 314 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Dodis 314 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1982
    Minn. Stat. § 609.065 (1980); State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
    In State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , a manslaughter case, witnesses testified that the defendant had assaulted the victim 1 year before the killing.
  • State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
    And in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , this court stated: We did 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. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
    See, State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 254
  • State v. Schluter 281 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Schluter 281 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1979
    609.065 and State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , (a first-degree manslaughter case).
  • State v. Harvey 277 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Myers 276 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Myers 276 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1979
    See, State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , and State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368
  • State v. Harvey 277 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1979
    2 The elements which must concur to establish a defense of justification are set out in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , : “(1) The killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or grievous bodily harm.
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
    See, also, State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
    In State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260 , we stated: “We did 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.” Defendant contends that thi
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Taylor 258 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1977
    In State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 253 , citing State v. Johnson, 211 Minn. 368, 373, the elements of self-defense were enumerated as follows: “ ‘It is a general rule that the legal excuse of self-defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith.
  • State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116 , State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242
  • State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
    See, State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 260
  • State v. Kilburn 231 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Kallestad 206 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Kallestad 206 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1973
    As we suggested in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 261 , upon a retrial defendant may wish to submit the issues to a jury.
  • State v. Granroth 200 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Granroth 200 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1972
    See, State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368 , State v. Sorenson, 32 Minn. 118
  • State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
    We observed in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , that the Spreigl decision was not intended to apply with respect to evidence offered in a homicide prosecution bearing directly upon the history of the relationship existing between one accused of murder and the victim.
  • State v. Graham 195 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Graham 195 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1972
    * * * His duty was to flee, and thus avoid the necessity for killing his adversary.” The Rheams case was quoted with approval in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 258
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
  • Gaulke v. State 184 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1971
  • Gaulke v. State 184 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1971
    9 Recently, in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242 , 170 N. W. (2d) 104 , although wholly without reference to our statute or constitution, we encouraged a defendant, upon retrial for murder, to reconsider his election to waive trial by jury.