Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hage, 595 N.W.2d 200.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kacey Emmanuel Kamara Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Shaine Defoe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Bonita Hoglund Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Perry Evan Helms, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-19 (Minn. 1980); -07 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Allen Mueller Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 200, 204 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. Abdirizak M. Mohamud Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See State v. Hage , (stating that due process requires state to prove every element of crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Brent Carter, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Steven Kalland Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Su Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Frank Rezac Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joel Richard Helgeson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
30, 1992) ; see also State v. Hage , (holding that defendant bears burden of proof on necessity defense if defendant’s theory does not contradict any element of charged offense).
State of Minnesota v. Gilberto Guzman-Diaz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
And while we have addressed an issue involving a jury instruction given on the necessity defense in the context of a criminal case for impaired driving, we have not addressed spe *208 cifically whether the defense is available in the context presented here.
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The defense of necessity is available to a defendant in “emergency situations where the peril is instant, overwhelming, and leaves no alternative but the conduct in question.” State v. Johnson, 289 Minn. 196, 199 , (citations omitted); (holding that the district court did not err by declining to overrule the jury’s verdicts, when district court’s “jury instruction required Hage to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she acted in an emergency situation where the peril was instant, over
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
“It is well settled that due process ‘protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.’ ” (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 204 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
e LaFave, supra, *616 § 5.6(a), at 395 (“Instead of speaking of ignorance or mistake of fact or law as a defense, it would be just as easy to note simply that the defendant cannot be convicted when it is shown that he does not have the mental state required by law for the commission of that particular offense.”); 1 Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 62(b), at 248 (1984); (addressing the allocation of the burden of proof for defenses and recognizing that a defendant cannot “be required to
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“Accordingly, if the mitigating circumstance or issue disproves or negates an element of the crime charged, the greatest burden a state may impose upon a defendant is that of shouldering the burden of production.” 2
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001