Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 719 N.W.2d 619.

101 citing documents.

Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Johnson , -26 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The determination of whether a j ury instruction should be given “lies within the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed but for an abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Maxim Kenneth Rhone. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Once a defendant has produced some evidence to support a claim of justification, it is the state’s burden to disprove “one or more of the[] elements beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Johnson , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining whether appellant produced sufficient eviden ce to support his self-defense claim, we consider “whether such evidence was sufficient to shift the burden to the state to disprove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Loving, d at 646 −47 (quoting State v. Johnson , ).
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(); (describing the four elements of self-defense in a homicide case as (1) the absence of aggression or provocation; (2) an actual and honest belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (3) reasonable grounds for that belief; and' (4) the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat).
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
(quoting State v. Basting, 572 *).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A district court abuses its discretion if it “refuse[s] to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevir Lee Nakomous Siltman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–31 (Minn. 2006) (“[I]ntent is a state of mind and is, therefore, generally provable only by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Devens 852 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Devens 852 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2014
However, under the so-called “castle doctrine,” a person need not retreat from his or her home before acting in self-defense.4 629 4 Devens uses the phrase “castle doctrine” to refer to the concept that a person need not retreat from his or her home before acting in self-defense.
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
In deciding whether a defendant subjectively acted in the heat of passion, we consider the defendant’s behavior before, during, and after the crime, but it is “the defendant’s emotional state at the time of the killing [that] is of primary importance.” -27 (Minn.2006).
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
-32 (Minn.2006); see also Minn.Stat.
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006