Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Frost, 342 N.W.2d 317.

41 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. R. Z. R., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3 State v. Frost , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he statute requires proof of an objective element and a subjective element, the objective element being gross negligence and the subjective element being recklessness in the form of an actual conscious disregard of the risk created by the conduct.” State v. Frost
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
This standard is satisfied by establishing (1) objective gross negligence on the part of the actor and (2) subjective “recklessness in the form of an actual conscious disregard of the risk created by the conduct.”
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
The reckless actor is aware of the risk and disregards it.” Cole, d at 51-52 (alterations in original); -20 (Minn.1983).
State v. Jude 554 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Jude 554 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Parsley 521 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Parsley 521 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(arming self with gun during dispute was culpable negligence even if gun discharged accidentally); (thrusting butcher knife in close proximity to husband’s chest was culpable negligence).
State v. McKown 475 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1991
State v. Barsness 473 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Barsness 473 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The element of recklessness involved in culpable negligence manslaughter requires “an actual conscious disregard of the risk created by the conduct.”
State v. Moore 458 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1990
State v. Moore 458 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1990
we said that the conduct described in the second degree manslaughter statute involves an element of awareness of the risk by the defendant.
State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
Followed State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hulin 412 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hulin 412 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Werman 388 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Werman 388 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Williams v. State 361 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1985
Williams v. State 361 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1985
at 668 n. 3; , 324 n. 1 (Minn.1983).
State v. Specht 359 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1984
State v. Specht 359 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1984
State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
State v. Cerceo 354 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1984
State v. Cerceo 354 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1984
State v. Lugo-Diaz 348 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1984
State v. Lugo-Diaz 348 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1984
Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to depart is answered by the following decisions of this court:
State v. Johnson 342 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1984
State v. Johnson 342 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1984
we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to depart dispositionally.