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. Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d 703.

77 citing documents.

  • State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Torkelson 404 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Torkelson 404 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
    Mandatory bifurcation promotes the policy goals of excluding psychiatric testimony regarding intent, (psychiatric evidence is of no value in determining intent because it does not relate to physical evidence upon which jury is *29 to determine intent issue), and obviates objections to admissibility at trial of self-incriminating statements made by defendant in the compulsory mental examination, State
  • State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (Bouwman II); (Bouwman I).
  • State v. Koop 375 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Koop 375 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    see Daniel M’Naghten’s case, 10 Clark & Finnelly 200, 8 Eng.Rep.
  • State v. Patrick 358 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Patrick 358 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    that expert testimony on the issue of a defendant's specific intent is not admissible.
  • State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    One week prior to trial appellant furnished the State with a psychiatric report from Dr. Carl Schwartz in which he gave the opinion that it was “highly unlikely in his paranoid intoxicated state that [appellant] had the ability to manufacture any willful or wrongful intent.” The trial court excluded Dr. Schwartz’s
  • State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
    defendant was charged with first-degree murder.
  • State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
    (hereinafter cited as Bouwman 7 ).
  • DeMars v. State 352 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Brown 345 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Brown 345 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1984
    The claim is without merit, psychiatric expert testimony on the issue of a defendant’s specific intent is not admissible at trial.
  • State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
  • State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Hoffman 328 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Hoffman 328 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1982
    released today, together *716 with this opinion, we have held that the defendant has no right to present psychiatric evidence as to diminished responsibility.