Cited by

(analyzing the “common and approved 6 usage” of terms when evaluating whether a statute is void for vagueness).

Thus, when a defendant is charged with second -degree intentional murder, “[o]nce [the] defendant raises a claim of heat of passion, the burden shifts to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of heat of passion.” - 39 (Minn. 1995).

A “pattern” is “a regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse.”

a reasonable doubt that he “did not act in the heat of passion when he committed 16 the killing.” Bradley contends the court erroneously placed the burden on the state to “prove beyond a reasonable [doubt] that [Bradley] acted in the heat of passion.” Due process requires that the state “prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every element of the crime charged.”

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and “assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and “assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Robinson

§ 609.185(a)(6) requires not only that the defendant caused the death of the victim while committing domestic abuse, but also that domestic abuse had occurred previously to the extent that it was a “past pattern.” A past pattern of domestic abuse “suggests a regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse.”

Further, there must be evidence tying the previous acts together into a “ ‘regular way of acting.’ ” (); see also Sanchez-Diaz, d at 832-33 (holding that a “past pattern” was established when (1) there was evidence of one incident in which the defendant choked the victim, (2) the defendant admitted previously slapping the vie- *590 tim at least twice, and (3) the defendant’s statement “everybo

A pattern is “a regular way of acting.”

See Clark, d at 419 (recognizing that “a pattern ‘suggests a regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse.’” ()).

See, (considering challenge to constitutionality of statutory basis of conviction on direct appeal).

The statute does not define the element of “past pattern of domestic abuse,” but we have said that “pattern” means individual incidents of abuse “tie[d] together * * * in a way that indicates that domestic abuse was a ‘regular way of acting’ for [the defendant].” ().

In the context of domestic abuse, a pattern “suggests a regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse.”

at 8-9 (citing United States v. Oliver, 908 F.2d 260, 265-66 (8th Cir.1990); Minn.Stat.

In the context of domestic abuse, a pattern “suggests a regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse.”

We have reviewed the domestic abuse homicide statute on three prior occasions: in *724

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, “this court must view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”

236 n. 6 (Minn.1995) (domestic abuse murder “requires neither premeditation nor specific intent to kill”).

this court held that a pattern was “a regular, mainly unvarying way of acting or doing.” Id.

(second-degree intentional murder); Persitz, d at 848-49 (premeditated murder); -59 (Minn.1990) (premeditated murder and felony murder), cert.