Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kendell, 723 N.W.2d 597.
- State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
- State v. Melchert-Dinkel 844 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
- Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
-
Hawes v. State
826 N.W.2d 775
Minn. 2013
(explaining that the defendant’s behavior after the shootings was consistent with premeditation).
- State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
-
State v. Hurd
819 N.W.2d 591
Minn. 2012
Leake, d at 321 (finding premeditation where a defendant disposed of evidence after a murder “by putting it in garbage bags and burning it in a fire”).
- State v. Grigsby 818 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
-
State v. Grigsby
818 N.W.2d 511
Minn. 2012
But when the State intends to seek an upward sentencing departure, due process requires notice of the “proposed departure grounds.”
- State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
-
State v. Anderson
789 N.W.2d 227
Minn. 2010
“A single shot squarely in the back can support a finding of premeditation because it indicates that the shooter took careful aim at the victim.”
- State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
- State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
- State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
- State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
- State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
- State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
- State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Cruz-Ramirez
771 N.W.2d 497
Minn. 2009
-50 (Minn.2007); -07 (Minn.2006) (concluding that “the nature of the killing [evidence was] significant” where the defendant (1) fired multiple shots; (2) shot the victim in the head at close range; and (3) fled the scene following the shooting).
- State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Burrell
772 N.W.2d 459
Minn. 2009
Burrell cites a handful of cases for the proposition that in order for a prior bad *466 act to demonstrate motive, the prior act must show a clear, non propensity-based motive theory for why the defendant committed the prior bad acts: “if not for the bad acts, the defendant would have had no reason to commit the charged offense.” , 608 n. 8 (Minn.2006) (holding that evidence of prior murder was admissible to prove motive for a defendant who subsequently killed a witness to the original murder);
- State v. Dunson 770 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Dunson
770 N.W.2d 546
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The Sixth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, demands that a defendant “ ‘be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.’ ” (quoting U.S. Const. amend.
- State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
- State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
- State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Grampre
766 N.W.2d 347
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
*354 “But where the facts are established, the determination is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Id.; (citing Marchbanks).
- State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
- State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
- State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
- State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
- State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
- State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
- State v. Coleman 731 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Coleman
731 N.W.2d 531
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
We did not find that this statute is facially unconstitutional, but noted, that *538 the legislature has remained silent regarding how a district court may fulfill this statutory mandate in a constitutional manner because it has not provided guidance as to the proper sentencing procedure for patterned sex offenders who committed their offenses before August 1, 2005, but are sent
- State v. Boehl 726 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Boehl
726 N.W.2d 831
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Here, the state’s both of which are relevant to our analysis of whether the district court could have properly exercised its inherent judicial .authority to impanel a resentencing jury.