Cited by

(stating that appellate courts may not re-weigh evidence); (rejecting defendant’s request to re-weigh the evidence).

iding the justifiable-intentional-taking-of-life instruction was an error when the defendant argued that the death was unintended); -33 (Minn. 1998) (determining that the district court improperly gave the justifiable-intentional-taking-of-life instruction when the defendant claimed that the death was accidental); -3 (Minn. 1995) (determining that the justifiable-intentional-taking-of-life jury instruction was incorrect when the defendant claimed the death was accidental); (explaining that the g

See State v. Robinson , (stating that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence).

justifiable-taking-of-life instruction, instead of the general self -defense instruction, when the defendant asserts self-defense but claims that the [victim’s] death was not the intended result.” State v. Pollard , , 179 (Minn. App. 2017) ( -44 (Minn. 2012); - 33 (Minn. 1998); State v. Robinson , -3 (Minn. 1995); ).

-22 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that defendant intended to kill when he fired single gunshot at victim’s abdomen from distance of three to five feet); (concluding that defendant intended to kill when he fired single gunshot at victim’s head at close range ); State v. Bickham , ( concluding 7 that defendant intended to kill when he fired single gunshot at back of victim’s head at close range); State v. Boitnott

We reject the invitation to act “as a kind of 13 th juror.”

-44 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that the justifiable-taking-of-life instruction was given in error where the defendant’s defense was that the death was unintended); Hare, d at 832-33 (concluding that the “self-defense— causing death” instruction was given in error where the defendant claimed the death was accidental); -3 (Minn. 1995) (concluding that the instruction was given in error where the defendant claimed the death was accidental); (noting that the general self-defense instruction should be

“Our precedent does not permit us to re-weigh the evidence.” (“We reject defendant’s request .

d 1, 2 (Minn. 1995) (stating that appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence).

(rejecting defendant’s request that court weigh evidence and grant relief if verdict was against the weight of the evidence and affirming based on the sufficiency of the evidence).

Though the Spreigl and revers e-Spreigl tests are similar, we have said that in the case of revers e-Spreigl evidence, “Sixth Amendment concerns (right to confront one’s accuser and right to present evidence) enter into the picture when it is the defendant who is seeking to present the [other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts] evidence.”

(“We reject defendant’s request ...

re view denied (Minn. June 9, 1987)

5, 1993) (unpublished opinion)); -3 (Minn.1995); (stating “even where death has resulted from a defendant’s action, the judge should use CRIMJIG 7.06 if the defendant’s theory does not include a concession that there was an intent to kill.”).