Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720.

221 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Plevell 889 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that “[a] single shot squarely in the back can support a finding of premeditation because it indicates that the shooter took careful aim at the victim”) ().
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[w]ith respect to claims of prosecutorial misconduct arising out of closing argument, we consider the closing argument as a whole rather than focus on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Kobena Ampah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000); -22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after considering all instances of prosecutorial misconduct), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
And laughter following a murder is “inconsistent with having acted on a rash impulse that arguably should lead to quick regret.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. E. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(indicating that mental states are generally proved circumstantially); –99 (Minn. 2013) (explaining that, under circumstantial evidence standard, reviewing court first identifies circumstances proved and then decides whether circumstances proved “a
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
3 Third, Griffin contends that his two first-degree murder convictions, for the murder of one victim, violate Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2014).2
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Blake Adam Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“With respect to claims of prosecutorial misconduct arising out of closing argument, we consider the closing argument as a whole rather than focus on particular ‘phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Karau Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Karau Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A jury is permitted to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Anwar Dykes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000) (stating that courts consider a prosecutor’s closing argument as a whole when determining whether misconduct occurred); -22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after considering all instances of prosecutorial misconduct), review
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Danton Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Prosecutorial misconduct A district court’s denial of a new-trial motion based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct will be reversed only “when the misconduct, considered in the context of the trial as a whole, was so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial was impaired.” -28 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000) (stating when courts consider claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument the arguments are considered as a whole); -22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after looking at all instances of prosecutorial misconduct ta
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2000) (stating when courts consider claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument the arguments are considered as a whole); d 315, 321-22 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial was warranted after considering all instances of prosecutorial misconduct)
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 As a state of mind, knowledge “generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.”
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A jury is permitted to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Knowledge “generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A state of mind, such as intent, “generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
As a state of mind, knowledge “generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Dale Allen Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dale Allen Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
As a state of mind, intent “generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amy Andrea Horsfield Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
As a state of mind, intent “generally is proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Arron Scott King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015