DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lloyd, 345 N.W.2d 240.

119 citing documents.

  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Resolution of inconsistencies among eyewitnesses’ testimony is the jury’s exclusive function “because it has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and weigh their credibility.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
    “The decision to grant a continuance is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.” ().
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
    Premeditation “ ‘indicates a preexisting reflection and deliberation involving more than a mere intent to kill.’ ” ().
  • State v. Thomas 590 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Thomas 590 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
    “Premeditation must generally be inferred from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” ( ).
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
    Premeditation “indicates a preexisting reflection and deliberation involving more than a mere intent to Mil.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Hofmann 549 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hofmann 549 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Impeachment by a prior conviction allows the factfinder “to judge better the credibility of a witness by affording it the opportunity to view that person as a whole.”
  • State v. Lodermeier 539 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Lodermeier 539 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1995
    ropriateness of the inference of premeditation can include, among other things: evidence as to the number of times the defendant used the weapon or the number of wounds inflicted, evidence of the nature of the wounds, Moore, d at 361 ; evidence relating to the time sequence, e.g., evidence of a period of time between shots, evidence as to motive, and evidence of the defendant’s words and actions before, during and after the killing.
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
    See (prior sexual assault convictions properly admitted for impeachment purposes in trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct); (trial court properly made decision to admit second degree murder conviction for impeachment purposes in trial for first degree murder had defendant testified).
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Miller 488 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Miller 488 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
    “The resolution of conflicting testimony is the exclusive function of the jury * * (emphasis added).
  • State v. Lynch 443 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Lynch 443 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Totimeh 433 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Totimeh 433 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
  • 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. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Bobo 414 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Bobo 414 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (affirming trial court's denial of continuance so defendant could persuade uncooperative witnesses to testify, because defendant made no offer of proof on testimony and did not explain why witnesses would cooperate if given more time).
  • State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Schwab “made no offer of proof to show what, if anything, more he would testify about that was not already before the jury.”
  • State v. Meat 397 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Meat 397 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (citing Pieschke, d at 584 ).
  • State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
  • West v. State 390 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986