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. Mytych, 194 N.W.2d 276.

56 citing documents.

  • Carlos Heard, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
  • Overruled Carlos Heard, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
    Then, in Noor, we stated that “the mental state required for depraved-mind murder cannot exist when the defendant’s actions are directed with particularity at the person who is killed,” which affirmed the defendant’s third-degree depraved-mind convictions even though she had directed her actions with particularity at the victims.
  • Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Heard argues that Noor announced a
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
    it explained that “[e]ach [depraved- mind murder] case must be determined on its own facts and issues.” d at 653 (emphasis omitted).
  • State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
    at 540 (Hooten, J., dissenting) (citing State v. Cole , , 50-51 (Minn. 1996) ; State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989) ; State v. Mytych , 292 Minn. 248 , , 282-83 (1972) ; State v. Walker , 279 Minn. 441 , , 508-10 (1968) ; State v. Staples , 126 Minn. 396 , 148 N.W.
  • State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See Minn. Stat. § 609.195 (a) (2016) ; see also State v. Netland , , 332 (Minn. 1995) (Tomljanovich, J., concurring specially) (stating lack of intent is not essential element of third-degree murder that must be proven at trial); State v. Mytych , 292 Minn. 248 , 257-59, , 282-83 (1972) (affirming district court's determination that affirmative proof of the lack of intent to effect the death of any person was not necessary to find appellant guilty of murder in the third degree).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A conviction may be reversed if we conclude that the fact-finder acted without due regard for the presumption of innocence and the necessity of overcoming that presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.2 State v. Combs, 292 Minn. 317, 320, see State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 251-52, (“[We] 2 We observe that the evidence presented at trial was direct evidence.
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    § 609.195(a); see State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 257 , (listing elements).
  • State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
    When reviewing the record to determine whether a defendant met his burden to prove mental illness, we conduct “a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the trial court to reach its conclusion.” State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
    On appeal, we conduct “ ‘a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach its conclusion.’ ” (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , ).
  • Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
  • Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
    We conduct “a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the trial court to reach its conclusion.” (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , ).
  • State v. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
    (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , ).
  • Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
  • Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
    On appeal, we "conduct[] `a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the [trial court] to reach its conclusion.'" (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , ).
  • State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
    1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, -81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct.
  • State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
    (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , ).
  • State v. Totimeh 433 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Totimeh 433 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 251-52
  • State v. Vievering 383 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Moore 381 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Moore 381 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 251-52 , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Wiley 366 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Wiley 366 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1985
    State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252
  • State v. Ibarra 355 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ibarra 355 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1984
    State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248
  • State v. Wiley 348 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Wiley 348 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252
  • DeMars v. State 352 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1984
  • DeMars v. State 352 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1984
    This court conducts “a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the trial court to reach its conclusion.” State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
    This court, in State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , sustained a conviction of third-degree murder where the defendant’s shots were aimed at the decedent alone.
  • State v. Carpenter 282 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Carpenter 282 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1979
    This issue has been previously decided by this court, State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , and reaffirmed in 1976 in State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331 , , to which we adhere.
  • State v. Cox 278 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Cox 278 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1979
    State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248
  • State v. Vail 274 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Vail 274 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1979
    State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 24
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
    611.026 as placing such a burden on the defendant *335 (State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , [1972]), he argues that the decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 , 95 S. Ct. 1881 , 44 L. ed. 2d 508 (1975), requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did know the nature of the act and did know that it was wrong.