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. 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.”