Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Edwards, 343 N.W.2d 269.

76 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When instructing on self-defense, a district court should use “analytic precision.”
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
theory does not include a concession that there was an intent to kill.”); (noting that an instruction that “ ‘the killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or great bodily harm’ is language that would better fit a case in which the defendant claimed he intentionally killed in self-defense”); (providing that the general self-defense instruction was properly provided to the jury, rather than the justifi-áble-takihg-of-life instruction, as “[t]he latter is usefu
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
As noted above, “the failure to submit lesser-included offenses to the jury is grounds for reversal only if the defendant is prejudiced thereby.” Shepherd, d at 516 (citing Bellcourt, d at 273 ); (stating that “[a]lthough we believe that the court erred in failing to *599 submit the offense, we do not believe that the error was prejudicial”); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 422 , d at 126 .
State v. Hare 575 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1998
State v. Hare 575 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1998
However, when instructing on self-defense, courts must use “analytic precision.” ().
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
State v. Parsley 529 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1995
State v. Parsley 529 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1995
n. 2 (Minn.1984), this court at least implied that the misdemeanor offense of pointing a firearm at another could be the predicate for a misdemean- or manslaughter conviction.
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
609 to impeach the defendant's credibility as a witness, normally, "the prosecutor may not elicit evidence concern *198 ing the facts underlying previous convictions used to impeach defendant's credibility.”
State v. Marquardt 496 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1993
State v. Marquardt 496 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1993
State v. Thunberg 492 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1992
State v. Thunberg 492 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1992
State v. Cuypers 481 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1992
State v. Cuypers 481 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1992
See, (no merit to argument that rage over alleged rape that had happened earlier in the day provoked killing where killing occurred during robbery); (rage arising from knowledge that victim had previously abused sister insufficient provocation); State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317 , (passions arising out of knowledge of wife’s past infidelity cannot justify homicide).
State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(defendant’s failure to object to self-defense instruction at trial “forfeited his right to have the issue considered on appeal”).
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
-76 (Minn.1984), discusses in detail the cases bearing on the submission of the lesser offense of culpably negligent manslaughter.
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated that CRIMJIG 7.05 was intended for situations in which death was intended, but that "when a defendant claims that he pointed a gun in self-defense but the shooting was accidental, CRIM-JIG 7.05 clearly does not fit.”
State v. Scheuble 392 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Scheuble 392 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
: The general rule is that a trial court has to submit a lesser offense only if it is a so-called lesser-included offense and only if there is evidence that produces a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and *344 convicting him of the lesser offense, (cite omitt
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bellcourt v. State 390 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1986
Bellcourt v. State 390 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1986
State v. Koop 380 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1986
State v. Koop 380 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1986
car stopped at stop sign, defendant got out, ran up to victim’s car and shot him; there was evidence that defendant and victim had argued earlier in the day and that victim had threatened to shoot defendant next time he saw him but the evidence was insufficient to establish provocation of the type needed to establish a rational basis for submitting heat-of-passion manslaughter); (state’s evidence established that defendant was thinking about killing his brother-in-law before going to bar and def