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. Rawland, 199 N.W.2d 774.

54 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Appellant relies extensively on State v. Rawland , in which the supreme court concluded that , “in this case the defendant established .
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts 876 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts 876 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2016
  • State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
  • State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
    We note that our court has consistently rejected arguments that M'Naghten must give way to a test that recognizes the power of the "irresistible impulse.” See, State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 46 , Finn, d at 511 .
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
    7 See State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 38-39 , see also Clark v. Arizona, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ambaye 616 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Ambaye 616 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 2000
    § 611.026; see also State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 46
  • State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
    5 In State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17 , this court upheld the literal construction of Minn.Stat.
  • Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
  • Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
    See Minn. Stat. § 611.026 ; State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 46
  • State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
    State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 46
  • State v. Jolley 508 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Jolley 508 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1993
    Defendant argues, however, that the proposed addition to CRIMJIG 6.02 is consistent with state law, pointing out that the language in question is taken from this court’s holding in State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17
  • State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 44
  • State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 474 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
    (expert opinion testimony did not compel verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness); (legal mental illness is a jury question); State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 45 , (ultimate determination as to legal mental illness rests with the fact finder).
  • State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
  • State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
    See, State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 35-36, 43 , -85, 789 (1972).
  • State v. Hoffman 328 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Hoffman 328 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1982
    In State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17 , the court stated: It has been said that a statute providing that insanity shall be no defense would be unconstitutional as a violation of due process of law and the right to trial by jury.
  • State v. Carlson 328 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Carlson 328 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1982
    2 According to defendant, the court in State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17 , construed the mental illness defense so as to mandate that the factfinder is to consider volition and capacity to control behavior.
  • State v. Ulm 326 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Ulm 326 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1982
    State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 336 , State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17
  • State v. Dodis 314 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Dodis 314 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1982
    State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 42-47 , -90 (1972).
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Carpenter 282 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Carpenter 282 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1979
    so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense; but he shall not be excused from criminal liability except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from one of these causes, as not to know the nature of his act, or that it was wrong.” The leading case interpreting this statute is State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17
  • State v. Malley 285 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
    Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ignoring his “capacity to control behavior.” His argument is based on his interpretation of our decision in State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17
  • State v. Wendler 252 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Wendler 252 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1977
    Defendant claims that in State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17 , 199 * this court effected a more liberal construction of Minn. St.
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Bott 246 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1976
    State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17
  • Warner v. State 244 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1976
  • Warner v. State 244 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1976
    State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 40
  • City of Minneapolis v. Altimus 238 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1976
  • City of Minneapolis v. Altimus 238 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1976
    State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17 , State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , State v. Finn, 257 Minn. 138
  • Rawland v. Sheppard 232 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1975
  • Rawland v. Sheppard 232 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1975
    State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17