Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moua, 678 N.W.2d 29.

74 citing documents.

State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
ire proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill,” or “require any specific period of time for deliberation,” the State “must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place,” (emphasis added).
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
We have defined premeditation as a state of mind generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” Hall, d at 477 ().
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
Neither a specific period of deliberation nor evidence of extensive planning is required to prove premeditation, but “the state must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place.”
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
motive evidence, i.e., “ ‘facts about the defendant’s prior relationship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be in *606 ferred’ and (3) evidence as to the nature of the killing, i.e., facts “ ‘from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.’ ” -41 (Minn.2004) ().
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
“Premeditation is defined as ‘a state of mind generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” ().
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse a district court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
lling”; (2) motive evidence, i.e., “facts about the defendant’s prior relationship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be inferred”; and (3) evidence as to the nature of the killing, i.e., facts “from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.” -41 (Minn.2004) (emphasis omitted) ().
State v. Tran 712 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2006
State v. Tran 712 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2006
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005