Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Linder, 304 N.W.2d 902.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A criminal defendant is presumed sane and responsible for his acts,” and “bears the burden of proving a mental-illness defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” ; see also Minn. Stat. § 611.025 (2016); State v. Linder
Abraham Deng Woi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts 876 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts 876 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2016
A criminal defendant is presumed sane and responsible for his acts, see Minn. Stat. § 611.025 (2014), and bears the burden of proving a mental-illness defense by a preponderance of the evidence
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
State v. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
718 (1843); n. 4 (Minn.1981) (stating: “The rule was first adopted in Minnesota in State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341 (Gil.315) (1868), and enacted into statute in 1885”).
State v. Lodermeier 539 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1995
State v. Lodermeier 539 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
-05 (Minn.1981); State v. Kilburn, 304 Minn. 217, 224-25
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
(fact finder not bound by expert testimony even where that testimony supports finding of legal mental *765 illness); (fact finder is the judge of the credibility of expert testimony regarding mental illness).
State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“[C]ircumstantial evidence in a criminal case is entitled to as much weight as any other kind of evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” (quoting State v. Morgan, 290 Minn. 558, 561 , ).
State v. Bergstrom 413 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bergstrom 413 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minn. Stat. § 611.026 (1986)
State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
Linder v. Commissioner of Human Services 394 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Linder v. Commissioner of Human Services 394 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
State v. True 378 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. True 378 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Peterson 375 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Peterson 375 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(quoting State v. Morgan, 290 Minn. 558, 561 , ).
State v. Koop 375 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Koop 375 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
There the court stated, “ ‘Substantial deference is accorded the jury’s evaluation of the testimony on mental illness, and we have often said that the jury is the sole judge of the believability and weight of the testimony.’ ” d at *495 282 ().
State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
Consequently, circumstantial evidence may form the basis of a jury determination of premeditation.” (citations omitted).
State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
In insanity defense cases, we have held that “[sjubstantial deference is accorded the jury’s evaluation of the testimony on mental illness, and we have often said that the jury is the sole judge of the believability and weight of the testimony.”
State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
we stated the standard for review of a jury finding on mental illness: “Substantial deference is accorded the jury’s evaluation of the testimony on mental illness, and we have often said that the jury is the sole judge of the believability and weight of the testimony.” Id.
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
State v. Lemire 315 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1982
“Premeditation is a state of mind; it can generally only be inferred from circumstantial evidence.”
State v. Hardimon 310 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1981
State v. Hardimon 310 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1981
State v. Dent 308 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981
State v. Dent 308 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981