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. Neumann, 262 N.W.2d 426.

82 citing documents.

  • State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
    The requisite ‘plan’ to commit first-degree murder can be formulated virtually instantaneously by a killer.”
  • State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
    A killer can formulate the requisite plan to commit first-degree murder “virtually instantaneously.”
  • State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
    -31 (Minn.1978); State v. Campbell, 281 Minn. 1
  • State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
    The requisite ‘plan’ to commit a first-degree murder can be formulated virtually instantaneously by a killer.” see also Lemire, d at 610 .
  • State v. Kirch 322 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kirch 322 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
    The requisite ‘plan’ to commit first-degree murder can be formulated virtually instantaneously by a killer.”
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979
    we held: “ * * * Extensive planning and calculated deliberation need not be shown by the prosecution.
  • Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
  • Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
  • Kochevar v. State 281 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1979
  • Kochevar v. State 281 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1979
    See, State v. Holscher, supra, (factual basis consisted of prosecutor’s summarization of state’s evidence, which was unchallenged by defendant); (factual basis supplied by-testimony from partial trial); State v. Goulette, supra, (defendant denied he was guilty, factual support for plea based on defense counsel’s summarization of state’s proposed evidence); State v. Hague, 304 Minn. 139 , (factual basis established, in part, by
  • Holscher v. State 282 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1979
  • Holscher v. State 282 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1979
    n. 2 (Minn.1978), we stated that “[o]ther important ways of establishing a factual basis would be to include written statements of witnesses as exhibits or to take testimony of certain witnesses.” we held that a trial judge who had presided over a partial trial before defendant decided to plead guilty could properly base his determination that there was an adequate factual basis on the evidence he had heard, which included testimony by defendant.
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
    This court has stated that a defendant’s state of intoxication at the time of a killing may properly be considered in determining whether he acted with premeditation, but in adopting that rule, it reaffirmed the rule that the fact that a defendant had been drinking alcoholic beverages prior to the killing does not raise a presumption that he was incapable of premeditation, id.; cf. State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90, 92 , (“The mere fact of a p
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Swain 269 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1978
    609.18 defines premeditation as follows: “For the purposes of sections 609.185 and 609.19, ‘premeditation’ means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.” this court restated prior holdings on premeditation in first degree murder prosecutions.