Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Auchampach, 540 N.W.2d 808.

87 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Borgquist 7 N.W.3d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Borgquist 7 N.W.3d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, n.7 (Minn. 1995) (noting that “[m]itigating circumstances or issues” are referred to as a “defense” or an “affirmative defense”); - 300 (Minn. 2004) (explaining in a civil suit that “[w]hereas an affirmative defense protects the party from liability, immunity typic
Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Due process requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every element of the crime charged.”).
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Patterson v. New York , 432 U.S. 197, 204 −05, 97 S. Ct. 2319, 2324 (1977)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 204, 97 S. Ct. 2319, 2324 (1977); State v. Auchampach
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Louis Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Louis Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Dewayne Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Dewayne Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because this requires a defendant to negate an element of the charged crime, “the defendant is required only to adduce sufficient evidence on the proffered defense to make the defense one of the issues of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2(d)(1) (2012); (holding that the state is required to prove each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
(“Due process requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every element of the crime charged.”).
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
816-17 & n. 7 (Minn.1995).
State v. Baynes 766 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Baynes 766 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(recognizing heat of passion mitigates first-degree pre-meditated murder to first-degree manslaughter).
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008
-18 (Minn.1995) (“the existence of heat of passion is a mitigating circumstance”).
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
ction on duress during trial, he now argues that the district court erred when it “failed to inform the jury that it must be proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Caine did not act under duress before [the jury] could return a verdict of guilty.” Jury instructions must “adequately instruct the jury on the State’s burden to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
In response, the state argues that, despite the language of the statute, subdivision 8 is “merely advisory” because the legislature “cannot shift any burden of proving age, an element of the offense, to the defense.” In Minnesota, defendants bear the burden of production when asserting an “affirmative defense.” , 816-17 n. 7 (Minn.1995).
State v. Myers 711 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
We have stated that “[a] party is entitled to a particular jury instruction if evidence exists at trial to support the instruction.”
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
1068, 1073 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
1068, 1073 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003