Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schweppe, 237 N.W.2d 609.

182 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]ntent is a ‘subjective state of mind usually established only by reasonable inference from surrounding circumstances.’” (quoting State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401, ).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The test of whether words or phrases are harmless or threatening is the context in which they are used.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399, (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yuri Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant’s conduct may be viewed in 4 the context of his relationship with the victim, and a victim’s reaction to that conduct is circumstantial evidence that is relevant to intent, see State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401, (concluding that a victim’s reaction to a threat was circumstantial evidence relevant to the intent element of a terroristic-threats charge).
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant’s conduct may be viewed in the context of his relationship with the victim, and a victim’s reaction to that conduct is circumstantial evidence that is relevant to intent, State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cf. State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400, (stating that threatened killing was a “crime of violence” under homicide statutes then in effect).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Nicholas Aase Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Nicholas Aase Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
1 (defining terroristic- threats) (2012); State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401, (stating that the effect of a terroristic threat on the victim is not an essential element of 6 the crime but is circumstantial evidence relevant to the element of the defendant’s intent).
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Whether a statement constitutes a threat, as an element of the offense of making terroristic threats, “turns on whether the communication in its context would have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399, (quotation omitted).
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“A threat is a declaration of an intention to injure another or his property by some unlawful act.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Although neither the terror-istic-threats statute nor the applicable definitional statute defines “threat,” caselaw defines a threat as a “declaration of an intention to injure another or his property by some unlawful act.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395 , 399 see Minn.Stat.
State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
In State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400 , we interpreted the term terrorize in the context of Minnesotas terroristic threats statute, Minn.Stat.
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
We have determined that intent is a “subjective state of mind usually established only by reasonable inference from surrounding circumstances.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 402
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
This section requires that the “defendant utter the threat -with the purpose of terrorizing another.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400
In Re the Welfare of M.A.H. 572 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Welfare of M.A.H. 572 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See, e.g., State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399 , (defining "threat" for purposes of terroristic threats statute as communication that in context would have reasonable tendency to create apprehension that originator will act in accordance with it); (Minn.App.
State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400-01
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
306 Minn. 395, 399-400 , -14 (1975) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 404
State v. Henriksen 522 N.W.2d 928 Minn. 1994
State v. Henriksen 522 N.W.2d 928 Minn. 1994
See, e.g., State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 402 , (upholding admission in terroristic threats case of evidence of defendant’s prior homosexual relationship with victim because evidence was relevant to the defendant’s motive).
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 403 , (evidence oí defendant’s homosexual past admissible because relevant to proof of his motive); Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Borden 455 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Borden 455 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“Intent * * * is a subjective state of mind usually established only by reasonable inference from surrounding circumstances.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
To “terrorize” means “to cause extreme fear *63 by use of violence or threats.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399
State v. Obasi 427 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Obasi 427 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
18, 1985) (citing State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395 , ).