Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Andrews, 388 N.W.2d 723.

71 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Id.; see also Raymond, d at 426 (holding that intent to kill the victim could be inferred from the nature and extent of the stab wounds and the defendant leaving the victim to bleed to death); - 29 (Minn. 1986) (holding that a single stab wound to the victim’s back and the defendant’s later attempt to leave the scene showed an intent to kill); (holding that a single fatal stab wound that passed through the breastbone and into the heart showed suffici
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jon Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jon Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
it took a while for her to start to talk to us.” (“Events both before and after,” as well as during the offense, “are relevant to the totality of the circumstances” from which an inference of intent may be drawn).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Events both before and after,” as well as during the offense, “are relevant to the totality of the circumstances” from which an inference of intent may be drawn.)
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
See Raymond, d at 426 (holding that the defendant’s intent to kill the victim was inferable from nature and extent of wounds and defendant’s act of leaving the victim to bleed to death); –29 (Minn. 1986) (holding that a single stab wound to the victim’s back and the defendant’s later attempt to leave the scene showed an intent to kill); (holding 13 that a single fatal stab wound that passed through
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Because intent and premeditation are states of mind, they are generally proved only by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding 4 circumstances.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Because intent and premeditation are states of mind, they are generally proved only by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”
In the Matter of the Appeal by Kind Heart Daycare, Inc. of the Order of License Revocation and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Appeal by Kind Heart Daycare, Inc. of the Order of License Revocation and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5, 426 (Minn. 1989) (holding that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature and extent of the wounds and the fact that defendant left the victim to bleed to death while he went home to bed); (holding that a single fatal stab wound passing through the breast bone and into the heart sufficient to support intent to kill); -29 (Minn. 1986) (intent to kill shown by single stab wound to the back and appellant’s attempt to leave the scene); (holding that defendant’s acts of stabbing one victim 19
State of Minnesota v. Marsenior Pede Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marsenior Pede Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The supreme court has allowed intent to kill to be proved by circumstantial evidence that the victim “was stabbed once, with sufficient force.”
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
4(2)(b); (holding that defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the district court’s refusal to sequester because defendant did not show a “significant probability” that prospective jurors were exposed to prejudicial material and the court did not abuse its discretion because defense counsel was not restr
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
Premeditation is defined as “a state of mind generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” ().
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, 729 (Minn.1986) (addressing sufficiency of evidence of specific intent and premeditation in murder case).
State v. Jones 566 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1997
State v. Jones 566 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Champion 517 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Champion 517 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1994