Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lodermeier, 539 N.W.2d 396.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
at 670–71 (relying on evidence that the victim told the defendant she was leaving him and taking their children to conclude that the defendant had motive) ; (determining that evidence of the defendant’s jealousy, need for money, and altercation with his girlfriend the same day he murdered her was sufficient to show motive); (citing evidence that the defendant’s relationship with his wife had deteriorated, that he was angry with her, and that they had fought the night before he murdered her in co
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
See *671 State v. Pendleton , , 909-910 (Minn. 2009) (relying on evidence that the defendant and the victim had fought and had a "rocky relationship" in finding motive in support of premeditation); State v. Lodermeier , , 398 (Minn. 1995) (relying on evidence that the relationship between the defendant and the victim "had deteriorated" in finding motive in support of premeditation).
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
See State v. Ortega , , 101 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that cleaning up and disposing of evidence were efforts to evade detection and supported a finding of premeditation); State v. Leake , , 321 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that burning evidence supported finding of premeditation); State v. Lodermeier , , 398 (Minn. 1995) (noting that a defendant's "words and actions before, during and after the killing" can support an inference of premeditation).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ing kill you.” (stating that deterioration of defendant and victim’s relationship may indicate premeditation).
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
We have found motive evidence when the “defendant’s relationship with the victim had deteriorated and [the] defendant was angry with [the victim,]” including “evidence that defendant and the victim had argued the night before the killing.”
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
Motive evidence also includes “evidence that defendant’s relationship with the victim had deteriorated and that defendant was angry with [the victim].”
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
We have also found motive evidence supporting a finding of premeditation when there is “evidence that defendant’s relationship with the victim had deteriorated and that defendant was angry with [the victim,]” including “evidence that defendant and the victim had argued the night before the killing.” see also State v. *601 Pendleton, (finding the evidence sufficient to support a finding of premeditation in part because motive evidence showed the defendant and victim had fought on the night of the
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
(internal quotation omitted); see, (stating that the deterioration of the couple’s marriage, an argument between the defendant and victim the night before the killing, and the defendant’s anger toward the victim provided evidence of premeditation).
State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
at 711 (concluding the fact that the victim and defendant were in the process of divorcing and that the victim had developed a close relationship with another man, which upset the defendant, supported inference of premeditation); (evidence that defendant’s relationship with the victim had deteriorated, that defendant was angry with the victim, and that defendant had argued with the victim the night before the killing supported a determination of premeditation); (noting that ju
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
Id; see, (stating that arguing with the victim the night before the killing, the deterioration of the defendant and victim’s relationship, and being angry with victim indicate premeditation).
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
(holding that evidence bearing on premeditation includes “the defendant’s words and actions before, during and after the killing”); State v. Griller, *27 (noting that “it seems even more implausible that after killing in self-defense or defense-of-dwelling, one would di
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
Id.; see, (arguing with the victim the night before the killing, the deterioration of the defendant and victim’s relationship, and being angry with victim indicate premeditation); State *711 v. Shepherd, (noting that defendant had previously made statements about wanting to kill
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(premeditation must generally be inferred from circumstantial evidence).