Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Buchanan, 431 N.W.2d 542.

134 citing documents.

State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
The heat- *801 of-passion manslaughter statute “evince[s] a legislative intent to excuse or mitigate a homicide where a defendant behaves as would a reasonable person.”
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
-52 (Minn.1988) (holding factual determinations on motion to suppress reversed only if clearly erroneous).
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
Premeditation “ ‘indicates a preexisting reflection and deliberation involving more than a mere intent to kill.’ ” ().
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Wolf 592 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Wolf 592 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(defendant’s constitutional right to give testimony must be balanced against relevancy requirement).
State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
403 (relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of “needless presentation of cumulative evidence”); (evidence of defendant’s prior exposure to street violence was duplicative of other evidence supporting self-defense claim).
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(recognizing choice of witnesses lies in counsel’s discretion); (noting choice of trial tactics generally will not serve as basis for finding ineffective assistance).
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
“Premeditation must generally be inferred from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” ( ).
State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-52 (Minn.1988) (prescribing a “clearly erroneous” standard for appellate review of factual findings made at an omnibus hearing).
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
*13 Indeed, as pointed out by Johnson, this court refused to reduce a first-degree murder conviction to manslaughter because one of three elements of a self-defense theory was met.
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 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
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
102 n. 3 (Minn.1990); , 332 n. 5 (Minn.1984).
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(claim on direct appeal lacked factual support); (bare allegations of inadequate preparation insufficient), pet.
State v. Larson 502 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Larson 502 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See *63 (defendant’s constitutional right to give testimony must be balanced against relevancy requirement).
State v. Thunberg 492 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1992
State v. Thunberg 492 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1992
State v. Cuypers 481 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1992
State v. Cuypers 481 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1992
State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Garrett 479 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Garrett 479 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
1712, 1717 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)
State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
Premeditation may be formed “virtually instantaneously,” and it is the jury’s role to weigh the evidence regarding the defendant’s state of mind.
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The balancing test is designed to “enhance the truth-seeking process by presenting only evidence which is probative and will lead to a rational and impartial decision.”