Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite LaMere v. State, 278 N.W.2d 552.

62 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene DuPaul Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[A] firearm manufactured as such is a ‘firearm’ even if there is some mechanical defect which renders it temporarily inoperable.” LaMere v. State
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone, A21-1648, Supreme Court, September 27, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone, A21-1648, Supreme Court, September 27, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. John Ishmael Bradley, III Minn. Ct. App. 2023
illustrate the expansive interpretation [it is] inclined to give the statute.” (concluding that an inoperable firearm fell within the definition of “dangerous weapon”); d 117, 117-18 (Minn. 1981) (pool cue); 4 (cowboy boots); -85 (Minn. 1968) (fists and feet)
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 (1971), which defines the term “dangerous weapon” to include “any firearm.” -56 (Minn. 1979).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
5 Glover argues that LaMere v. State , compels the conclusion that, to be a firearm, a device must be “designed or manufactured as a firearm.” Glover’s argument is incorrect.
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See LaMere v. State , , 557 (Minn. 1979) (when defendant did not admit that inoperable gun was a dangerous weapon, jury instructions should have explained that firearm that is unloaded or inoperable when used may still be a firearm).
State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Donson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Donson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
6, an “expansive interpretation.” see also Graham, d at 337 (“[T]he definition of dangerous weapon in subdivision 6 must be expressed in flexible terms and be broad and inclusive.”).
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Busse 644 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2002
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The determination of what, if any, lesser offense to submit to the jury lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 421 , d at 125 ; but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The determination of what, if any, lesser offense to submit to the jury lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, Leinweber , 303 Minn, at 421, d at 125 ; but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.
Bellcourt v. State 390 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1986
Bellcourt v. State 390 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1986
The determination of what, if any, lesser offense to submit to the jury lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, Leinweber , 303 Minn, at 421, d at 125 ; but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.
State v. Roden 384 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1986
State v. Roden 384 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1986
State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986
State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986
The determination of what, if any, lesser offenses should be submitted to the jury lies with the sound discretion of the trial court, but where the evidence warrants such an instruction, it must be given.
State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
II Although we are reversing because of the failure to include an instruction on theft, we also believe the trial court committed reversible error for commenting to the jury that “it is undisputed that * * * a robbery did occur * * A trial court “should not instruct the jury that an uncon-tradicted fact exists when that fact constitutes an essential element of the offense.”
State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
State v. Abraham 338 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
State v. Abraham 338 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
State v. Whisonant 331 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1983
State v. Whisonant 331 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1983
-58 (Minn.1979), which held that the offense of pointing a gun at a human being is not a lesser.included offense of assault with a dangerous weapon.
State v. Abeyta 328 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1983
State v. Abeyta 328 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1983
where we held that the offense of pointing a gun at a human being is not a lesser-included offense of assault with a dangerous weapon.
State v. Gayles 327 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
State v. Gayles 327 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
For an example of the use of this approach
Gerdes v. State 319 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1982
Gerdes v. State 319 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1982
Although no Minnesota case has directly addressed this issue, is instructive.
State v. Walker 319 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1982
State v. Walker 319 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1982
where we held that similar testimony was harmless error.