Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Niska, 514 N.W.2d 260.

32 citing documents.

State v. Garcia 927 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Garcia 927 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
29 (Minn. 1983) ; see also State v. Niska , , 264 (Minn. 1994) (restating that "defendants pleading self-defense or entrapment need only fairly raise those defenses and then the burden of disproving them beyond a reasonable doubt falls on the state").
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Ann Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kevin John Motz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin John Motz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-65 (Minn. 1994) (declining to apply an amendment retroactively that purportedly clarified a pre- existing statute, based on ex post facto concerns and the rule of lenity).
Braylock v. Jesson 819 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Braylock v. Jesson 819 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
-65 (Minn.1994); see also, (“A comparison of the language of the two versions demonstrates that the [amendment] was intended merely to clarify the [preexisting statute].”).
State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See, (concerning maternal grandparents, who removed child from state with the mother’s permission but without notifying father, who had limited supervised visitation rights and did not know child’s location for six years); (concerning mother who left the
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003
State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003
(citing Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 , 91 S.Ct.
State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
(stating that the fact that legislature inserted word "clarifying” into the title of the amending act by itself is not sufficient to justify retroactive application).
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
For example, we cited Charlton as authority for the proposition that, when raising the "justification defenses" of self-defense, entrapment, and duress, a defendant is required to make a prima facie showing of the defense, with the burden of persuasion then shifting to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
affd in part, rev’d in part, see Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-31 (Minn.1983); State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 96