Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Whisonant, 331 N.W.2d 766.

82 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devin Matthew Weiland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devin Matthew Weiland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- 22 (Minn. 2009); (holding that firing a single shot from a pen gun at a victim who was 12 feet away was evidence of intent to kill).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Whisonant , (concluding that when a defendant responds to an alleged error as opposed to objecting to it, he forfeits consideration of the issue on appeal).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 , 530-32 (Minn. 1989) (concluding that defendant intended to kill when he fired single gunshot at victim’s skull); (concluding that defendant intended to kill when he fired single shot from pen gun toward victim from distance of 12 feet); , 271 (Minn. App. 1999) (concluding that defendant int e
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Intent must be determined from all the objective facts and circumstances, including the defendant’s conduct and/or statements at the ti me of the act.” State v. 5 Whisonant
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rather, a person’s assaultive intent “must be determined fro m all the objective facts and circumstances, including the defendant’s conduct and/or statements at the time of the act.” -26 (Minn. 1999) (noting that intent may be proved from circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s conduct, the characte r of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
As we 4 We note that, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that defense counsel forfeits a claim of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct on appeal if he fails to object, and, instead, chooses to respond in closing arguments.
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Intent is “determined from all the objective facts and circumstances.”
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Intent must be determined from all the objective facts and circumstances, including the defendant’s conduct and/or statements at the time of the act.”
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Intent must be determined from all the objective facts and circumstances, including the defendant’s conduct and/or statements at the time of the act.”
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–22 (Minn. 2009); 768 (Minn. 1983); –71 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Consequently, second-degree assault is not a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder, or of attempted second-degree murder, Gayles, d at 3.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Intent must be determined from all the objective facts and circumstances, including the defendant’s conduct and/or statements at the time of the act.”
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(finding sufficient evidence of intent to kill where defendant fired a single shot at a police officer from 12 feet away); (finding sufficient evidence of intent to kill where defendant fired up to seven shots, in close quarters in a crowded bar, aft
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Chuon 596 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Chuon 596 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence including the defendant's conduct, *526 and the character of the assault
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
§ 609.04 (1996); (second-degree assault is not a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder); (aggravated assault is not a lesser-included offense of murder); Gayles, d at 3 (assault with dangerous weapon is not lesser-included offense of second-degree mur
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Griffin 510 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Griffin 510 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Welfare of D.S.F. 416 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Welfare of D.S.F. 416 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Badiner 412 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Badiner 412 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(intent must be determined from all objective facts and circumstances).