DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745.

101 citing documents.

  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Once the defendant has made a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the prosecution “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the lack of the defense.” Hage, d at 205 (citing Auchampach, d at 817 ) (other citation omitted); (distinguishing “affirmative defense,” for which defendant must raise the defense and bears the persuasion burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence, from “ordinary defense,” for which, once defendant makes prima facie showing that the defense is an
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has deemed “it fundamental that criminal defendants have a due-process right to explain their conduct to a jury.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
    (state’s burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendants had no claim of right).
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    d be considered "as an *817 ordinary defense, requiring the defendant to present evidence, with the burden of persuasion on the prosecution to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt; or * * * as an affirmative defense, requiring the defendant to go forward with evidence raising the defense and shoulder the persuasion burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” (emphasis added) (citing 1 'Wharton’s Criminal Law § 39 (C. Torcía 14th ed. 1978)); see also Alford
  • State v. Bashaw 531 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Bashaw 531 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (affirmative defense requires defendant to produce evi *207 dence raising defense and to prove defense by preponderance of evidence); (when defendant is charged with violation of Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Klosterboer 529 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    1194, 1196-97 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)
  • State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Horning 511 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Horning 511 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    such motions pose a danger of undermining a defendant's constitutional rights by limiting the accused's defenses before the state has borne its burden of proof.
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Zimmer 487 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Gallus 481 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Gallus 481 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    The test for determining what constitutes a basic element of, rather than an exception to a statute, has been stated as ‘whether the exception is so incorporated with the clause defining the offense that it becomes in fact a part of the description.’ (quoting Williams v. United States, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 (D.C.Cir.1943)).
  • State v. Zimmer 478 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Zimmer 478 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Rein 477 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Rein 477 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    (defendant may offer evidence that he has a property right such as owner, tenant, lessee, licensee or invitee); (statute may give person licensee status).
  • State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Stallings 474 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    1194, 1196 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (defendant’s due process rights violated when material exculpatory evidence not admitted); (defendants have fundamental due process right to explain their conduct to jury).
  • State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
    -52 (Minn.1984) (Wahl, J., concurring).
  • State v. Langaas 426 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Langaas 426 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • In Re the Welfare of L.Z. 396 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1986
  • In Re the Welfare of L.Z. 396 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1986
    The child also knows that *222
  • State v. Scholberg 395 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Scholberg 395 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    holds that in a trespass case brought under § 609.605(5), the State bears the burden of disproving that a defendant has a valid “claim of right” to be on the premises.
  • State v. Wiltse 386 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Wiltse 386 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has “deem[ed] it fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury.” (citing United States v. Bowen, 421 F.2d 193, 197 (4th Cir.1970)).
  • Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Matter of Welfare of LZ 380 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    State v. Townsend, 259 Minn. 522, 529
  • State v. Higgins 376 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Higgins 376 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Johnsen 364 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Johnsen 364 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Schervee 356 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1984