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. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707.

159 citing documents.

  • State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
    The trial court granted the limitation by saying, “if he made complete disclosure to you, you are not to intimate that the state withheld anything from you.” -17 (Minn.1978), where the court upheld the trial court’s order that defense counsel not comment upon the state’s failure to call a certain witness.
  • State v. Ward 361 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Ward 361 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Berg 358 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Berg 358 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Hinkel 353 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hinkel 353 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Davidson 351 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Davidson 351 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1984
    we ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defense counsel not to comment on the prosecutor’s failure to call a witness who was equally available to both sides and who would have added irrelevant issues to the trial.
  • State v. McCloud 349 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. McCloud 349 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    954 , 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981) ().
  • Mehralian v. State 346 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Mehralian v. State 346 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
    More recently, however, we have stated that premeditation may only be inferred “in part from the number of times a weapon is used.”
  • State v. Edwards 343 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Edwards 343 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1984
    (i) Murder cases in which we have been asked to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter include, in chronological order, State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414
  • State v. Nurmi 336 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Nurmi 336 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1983
    Murder cases in which we have been asked to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter include, in chronological order, State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414
  • State v. Phelps 328 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Phelps 328 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kirch 322 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kirch 322 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1982
    we discounted defendant’s threat because it was too remote in time to bear on the issue of premeditation.
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
    We have recognized that, although the severity and duration of a beating a lone will not support a finding of premeditation, -14 (Minn.1978), such a finding can be justified by all of the circumstances, with due deference given to the jury’s verdict.
  • State v. Hardimon 310 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Hardimon 310 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1981
    As to the relevance of some of these facts, particularly prior robbery planning and defendant’s desire to prevent identification, and State v. Walker, 306 Minn. 105
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
    (news reports were factual; trial court properly denied change of venue); State v. Annis, 291 Minn. 552, 553 , (per curiam) (same).
  • State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Linder 304 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1981
    In examining this comment, , 713 n. 8 (Minn.1978), that “the legislature intended some greater distinctions between first and second degree murder than we have heretofore recognized.” “Premeditation denotes a pre-existing reflection and deliberation involving more than a mere intent to kill.”
  • State v. Olkon 299 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Olkon 299 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
    In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal matter, this court “must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict and decide whether the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the crime charged.”
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
    *416 However, -14 (Minn.1978), -92 (Minn.1979), we held that the severity and duration of a beating alone will not support a finding of premeditation.
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Webber 292 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1980
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979