DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

62 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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).
  • 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.