Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281.

139 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
29, 2003) (citing State v. Basting , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-86 (Minn. 1997) (stating evidence of a broken nose and a deep cut requiring stitches was suffi cient to establish an assault with substantial bodily harm); (holding that a temporary loss of consciousness is substantial bodily harm) ; State v. Carlson , 36
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that a defendant’s professional boxing training and experience was not sufficient evidence to “convert” his fist into a dangerous weapon under the second- degree assault statute).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To determine if an object is a dangerous weapon, we “examine not only the nature of the object itself, but also the ma nner in which it was used.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The degree of force used in self- defense must not exceed that which appears to be necessary to a reasonable person under similar circumstances.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To determine “whether an object, even an inherently dangerous object, is a dangerous weapon, [we] must examine not only the nature of the object itself, but also the manner in which it was used.”
Sonny Syhavong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Accordingly, “[w]hen determining whether an object, even an inherently dangerous object, is a dangerous weapon, the court must examine not only the nature of the object itself, but also the manner in which it was used.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Self-defense also requires that the degree of force used “must not exceed that which appears to be necessary to a reasonable person under similar circumstances.” State v. Basting
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The defendant bears the burden of “going forward with evidence to support a claim of self-defense.” State v. Basting
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Devens, d at 258 (quoting State v. Basting , −86 (Minn. 1997)).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing State v. Basting , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But Loving is quoting Johnson, which states that the “state has the burden of disproving one or more of [the self-defen se] elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Johnson, d at 629 (quoting State v. Basting , ); (stating that to disprove a self-defense claim, the “State need only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of sel f-defense”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Basting , (citing Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Self-defense also re quires that the degree of for ce used “must not exceed that which appears to be necessary to a reasonable person under similar circumstances.”
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Donson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Donson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
see Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 887 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 887 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2016
185, 8 187-88 (1859) (discussing the common-law crime of “assault and battery,” which included striking another person), (holding that punching another person is a statutory “assault”).
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The degree of force used in self-defense must not exceed that which appears to be necessary to a reasonable person under similar circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(d 281, 285-86 (Minn. 1997)).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Leithe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Leithe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(listing elements of self-defense).
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The defendant “has the burden of going forward with evidence to support a claim of self-defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is a dangerous weapon, the court must examine not only the nature of the object itself, but also the manner in which it was used.”
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014