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. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793.

99 citing documents.

  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
  • State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
    we held that expert testimony was allowed on battered woman syndrome, but that such testimony was to be limited to “a description of the general syndrome and the characteristics which are present in an individual suffering from the syndrome.
  • State v. Vance 685 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Vance 685 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (addressing under what circumstances a criminal defendant can present expert testimony on the syndrome in support of a self-defense theory).
  • State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
    800 n. 5 (Minn.1989), 4 seemed to approve of jury instructions that imposed a duty to retreat within one’s home when the aggressor is a co-resident.
  • State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Glowacki 615 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Glowacki 615 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    in part, to the extent that it addresses whether a duty to retreat is encompassed within the legal excuse of self-defense between co-residents.
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
    Finally, aff'd in part, rev’d in part
  • State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (stating that it is a “ ‘rare’ ” case that merits reversal of the trial court’s discretion to refuse to depart) (citation omitted); (stating that “[tjrial court authority to impose stay of execution/imposition is the rule, and exceptions are rare”)
  • State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    -67 (Minn.App.1988), aff'd in part, rev’d in part
  • State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Grecinger 569 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 1997
    702, because it helped the jury understand the alleged victim’s behavior; and where, the expert testimony was limited to a description of the syndrome and its characteristics, and the expert did not testify on the ultimate fact of whether the alleged victim actually suffered from battered woman syndrome.
  • State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Chambers 507 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Chambers 507 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1993
    We do not, for example, allow expert opinion testimony on the ultimate question of whether a rape victim had rape trauma syndrome, nor on whether a battered woman in fact suffered from the battered woman syndrome, -80 (Minn.1989).
  • Sanford v. State 499 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Sanford v. State 499 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    This “new defense” rev’d on other grounds
  • State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
    We do not, for example, allow expert opinion testimony on the ultimate question of whether a rape victim had rape trauma syndrome, nor on whether a battered woman in fact suffered from the battered woman syndrome, -800 (Minn.1989).
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    the supreme court reversed the trial court’s imposition of a presumptive sentence and imposed a downward departure.
  • State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (victim abused defendant and there were additional mitigating factors).
  • State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
    -99 (Minn.1989) (testimony on battered woman syndrome admissible because the theory is “beyond the experimental stage” and has gained a substantial scientific acceptance, unlike rape trauma syndrome).
  • State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Finally, -01 (Minn.1989), to support the argument that his sentence reflects improper emphasis by the trial court on only the aggravating factors to the exclusion of mitigating ones.
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    This court affirmed a trial court’s -71 (Minn.Ct.App.1988), rev’d on other grounds
  • State v. Dutton 450 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Dutton 450 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    allowed expert testimony on battered woman syndrome, which it found is beyond the understanding of the average person and “has gained substantial enough scientific acceptance to warrant admissibility.” Id.