Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gayles, 327 N.W.2d 1.

50 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
To determine “whether one offense is necessarily proved by the proof of another, ‘the trial court must look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case.’” Gisege, d at 156 ().
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 A person is guilty of a pattern-of-stalking conduct if he or she engages in two or more criminal acts within a five-year period, toward a single victim or members of a single household, which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim to feel terrorized or fear bodily harm, and
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In determining whether one offense necessarily is proved by the proof of another, ‘the trial court must look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Courts “must look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case to determine if the lesser offense is necessarily included.”
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
In determining whether one offense necessarily is proved by the proof of another, “the trial court must look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case.”
State v. Blair 474 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Blair 474 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
To determine whether an offense is a lesser included offense, this court “must look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case * * *.” *183
State v. Roden 380 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Roden 380 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
at 780-81 (citation omitted)
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
* * * If, after comparing the elements of each offense, “a person can commit the greater offense, as legally defined, without committing the lesser offense, as legally defined, the lesser offense is not necessarily included within the greater offense.” -81 (Minn.1985) ( ).
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. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
State v. Buschkopf 373 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1985
State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
State v. Larson 369 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Galvan 368 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Galvan 368 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
The approach taken by this court is that “the trial court must look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case to determine if a lesser offense is necessarily included.”
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
(court upheld admissibility of live .357-mag-num bullet because it was found in the trunk of the car defendant and his accomplices used and it was a bullet that was *828 used almost exclusively in handguns and could have caused the flash the victim observed when he was being shot at); Mar-queta, supra (cou
State v. Siverhus 355 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1984
State v. Siverhus 355 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1984
State v. Kinsky 348 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
State v. Kinsky 348 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
2 In determining whether a lesser *326 offense is “necessarily included” within another offense, “the trial court must look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case to determine if the lesser offense is necessarily included.”
State v. Haase 341 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1984
State v. Haase 341 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1984
the approach that one must take in applying the statute is to look at the statutory definitions rather than the facts in a particular case.
State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
State v. Matilla 339 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1983
State v. Matilla 339 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1983
State v. Whisonant 331 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1983
State v. Whisonant 331 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1983