DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d 43.

156 citing documents.

  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    (construing portion of statute that prohibits reckless handling of a gun).
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
    -40 (Minn.2001); -51 (Minn.1996); -95 (Minn.1990) (Moore II, unrelated to Moore I).
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Mitchell 693 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Mitchell 693 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    A proper analysis of whether the underlying felony involves a special danger to life must consider both “the *894 elements of the underlying felony in the abstract [and] the facts of the particular case and the circumstances under which the felony was committed.” see also Anderson, d at 701 n. 6 (observing that “Minnesota’s special danger to human life standard is not merely a totality of the circumstances standard but rather a two-part inquiry into the inherent danger of the offense and the dan
  • State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Anderson 666 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Anderson 666 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2003
    (“When determining if the underlying felony involves a special danger to life, we not only consider the elements of the underlying felony in the abstract, but also the facts of the particular case and the circumstances under which the felony was committed”).
  • Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
  • Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
    State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 325 , State v. Campbell, 281 Minn. 1, 13
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    The decision to give a particular jury instruction lies within the district court’s discretion “and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Anderson 654 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Anderson 654 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    See, (shoplifting); (damage to property); (sale of narcotics); (sale of narcotics).
  • State v. Kelbel 648 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Kelbel 648 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    The refusal to give a particular jury instruction lies within the district court’s discretion “and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.”
  • State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Stempf 627 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Stempf 627 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
    See, (holding that first- and second-degree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of second-degree felony murder).
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    M.D.S., d at 729 (); (acknowledging traditional limitation that predicate felony must involve special danger to human life based on case’s facts and circumstances).
  • State v. Edrozo 578 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Edrozo 578 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1998