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. Ott, 189 N.W.2d 377.

23 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Further, the victim “was scared and didn’t know what was going to hap pen.”6 6 Larkins contends that “[t]he fact that the alleged victim may or may not have been scared is irrelevant; what matters is the defendant’s intent to cause such fear.” It is true that “t he intent of the actor, as contrasted with the effect upon the victim, [is] the focal point for inquiry.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “[A] finding of intent to cause fear in a nother of immediate bodily harm or death cannot be based solely on the effect the actor’s behavior had on the victim.” see also State v. Ott , 291 Minn. 72, 75, (noting for assault-fear, the intent of the actor “becomes the focal point for inquiry,” as opposed to “the effect upon the victim”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
    See State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72, 75, (stating that 19 while the intent of the actor is the “focal point” for the intent inquiry, the “ordinary effect upon others of the acts alleged to constitute the crime may naturally be taken into account to determine intent”).
  • State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72, 75, d 377, 379 (1971).
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
    Instead, “[t]he ordinary effect upon others of the acts alleged to constitute the crime may naturally be taken into account to determine intent.” State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72, 75
  • In the Welfare of T.N.Y. 632 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In the Welfare of T.N.Y. 632 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    “ ‘The intent of the actor, as contrasted with the effect upon the victim, becomes the focal point for inquiry.’ ” Hough, d at 396 (quoting State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72, 75 , ).
  • State v. Hough 585 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1998
  • Explained State v. Hough 585 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1998
    10(1), we stat *396 ed: “The intent of the actor, as contrasted with the effect upon the victim, becomes the focal point for inquiry.” State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72, 75
  • State v. Hough 571 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Johnson v. State 421 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Johnson v. State 421 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    § 609.02 as establishing “that the intentional infliction of great bodily harm constitutes aggravated assault.” State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72, 75
  • State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    In State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72, 75 , the court pointed out that the focal point of inquiry in an assault case is the intent of the actor, not the effect on the victim.
  • State v. Soine 348 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Soine 348 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72
  • State v. Abeyta 328 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Abeyta 328 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1983
    State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72
  • State v. Spencer 216 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Spencer 216 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
    The language is as follows, as I again repeat: ‘Whoever assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm is guilty of the offense of Aggravated Assault.’ ” This court established in State v. Ott, 291 Minn. 72 , that Minn. St.