DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lindahl, 309 N.W.2d 763.

79 citing documents.

  • State v. Fortman 474 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
  • State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
  • Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (Spreigl incident in Brooklyn Park used in charged offense in Aitkin).
  • State v. Kasper 409 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Kasper 409 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1987
    (case in which prosecutor, instead of using the simple offer of proof procedure at the Spreigl hearing, had the victim give a shortened testimonial summary of what happened with only limited cross-examination).
  • State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    We recognize that the trial court has some discretion in determining whether the State is required to call a Spreigl witness to testify at a hearing, but in this case it was error not to do so because there was no other evidence that the Spreigl incident occurred.
  • State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    We read the statute as requiring only the general intent “to do the act which is prohibited by the statute,” under the conditions under which it is prohibited.
  • State v. Erickson 396 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Erickson 396 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (line-up with two pictures of the defendant, two of another person, and one each of the rest); (defendant’s picture was the only col- or photograph and appeared twice).
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Gerring 378 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Gerring 378 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Abraham 338 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Abraham 338 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
    Without deciding whether defendant was even entitled to an instruction on the defense of voluntary intoxication — —we simply hold that the jury was free to find that defendant’s intoxication did not prevent him from forming any criminal intent.
  • State v. Nurmi 336 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Nurmi 336 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Patch 329 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Patch 329 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1983
    It is not clear whether defendant was entitled to have the defense of voluntary intoxication submitted with respect to the sex charge, but, in any event, we are satisfied that the evidence was not such as to compel the jury to find that defendant’s intoxication prevented him from forming any necessary specific intent, State v. Olson, 298 Minn. 551
  • State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
  • State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
    The first contention, that the offer-of-proof procedure was inadequate to protect defendant’s rights, where we upheld the use of the offer-of-proof procedure in such a situation.
  • State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
    § 609.075 (1980) 1 has no application to his case because, the offense with which he was charged and of which he was convicted is a general intent, not a specific intent crime.
  • Muhammed v. State 316 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1982
  • Muhammed v. State 316 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1982
    The specific arguments made by petitioner have been addressed in a number of our cases, including the following: