Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bird, 734 N.W.2d 664.

20 citing documents.

Ryan Grant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
While the statut e defines “major participant,” it does not define “extreme indifference to human life.” The parties agree that the definition used by the district court is the correct definition of “extreme indifference to human life.” Extreme indifference to human life involves “recklessness or at minimum, gross negligence .”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see also Anderson, d at 237 (“Minnesota does not recognize the doctrine of diminished capacity or diminished responsibility.”); (concluding “psychiatric opinion testimony is not admissible on whether, in fact, the defendant had the capac
State of Minnesota v. Paul Jonathon Lindahl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. 2020
Moreover, the phrase “under like 10 circumstances” does not “encomp ass the unique mental charac teristics of a particular defendant.”
State of Minnesota v. Fue Her Minn. Ct. App. 2020
3 (ruling that “[b]ecause the reasonableness of a defendant’s provocation is an objective determination,” the fact-finder was not to consider 3 The district court rejected Her’s voluntary -intoxication defense, finding that Her’s testimony regarding his
Michael Thomas Palke v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Bird , Hayes, d at 136-37.
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Susan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Johann Richard Sebastian Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. James Richard Jerome Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
Given the evidence in the record, we conclude that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it found that there was a proper factual basis to support the conclusion that Lussier had engaged in a “past pattern of domestic abuse.” Extreme indifference to human life involves “recklessness or at a minimum, gross negligence.”
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
E.g., Peterson, d at 822 ; Provost, d at 104 ; -64 (Minn.1990)
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
Ganpat v. State 746 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2008
Ganpat v. State 746 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2008
Additionally, Gan-pat’s right to equal protection was not violated because “expert testimony is generally not admissible * * * to inform the fact-finder about the general effects of a mental illness.”