Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fratzke, 354 N.W.2d 402.

84 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
r -person exclusion to reject an argument for instructions on depraved-mind murder); (same); –18 (Minn. 1980) (same); (same); (same); (same); (same); (same), abrogated on other grounds, (same); d 315, 321–22 (Minn. 2003) (same); State v. Harris , , 850
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court has wide discretion in deciding motions to change venue, and we will not reverse “unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But the fact that there is widesp read publicity does not require a change of venue; the question is “whether the publicity is of a type that is prejudicial to the defendant” and “affects the minds of the specific jurors involv ed in the case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognize d that “mental illness is a specialized field where expert knowledge and experience are required.” d 402, 409 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
(reviewing for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to change venue to a county to which the defendant objected).
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
504 (Minn.1999) (upholding first-degree murder conviction); -400 (Minn.1985) (upholding rape conviction); 408-09 (Minn.1984) (upholding first-degree murder conviction).
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
(declining to address the district court’s admissibility determination “because any error in admitting the evidence was harmless.”).
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
To prevail on this argument, Evans must show that he suffered actual prejudice and that “the [pretrial] publicity ‘affeet[ed] the minds of the specific jurors involved in the case.’ ” ().
Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
State v. Harris 713 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2006
State v. Harris 713 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2006
Third-degree murder requires that “the reckless or wanton acts of the accused were committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons.” ().
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
To receive a new trial based on the denial of a change of venue motion as a result of pretrial publicity, a defendant must show that the publicity “affect[ed] the minds of the specific jurors involved in the case.”
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
Dahlin, d at 601 ( (stating determinations of intent are primarily questions of fact for the jury “to decide on the basis of their experiences in life and common sense”)).
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
(stating determinations of intent are primarily questions of fact for jurors “to decide on the basis of their experiences in life and common sense”); State v. Flores, 418 N.W12d 150, 155 (Minn.1988) (“Premeditation, being a process of the mind, is wholly subjective and hence not always susceptible to
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
State v. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
State v. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
1(4) (1990) (offender may not be convicted of both crime charged and a “crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved”); (applying Minn.Stat.
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Brink 500 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
“The average juror has some experience with intoxication and is presumably able to consider the effect of alcohol consumption on the ability to act with intent.”
State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
State v. Provost 490 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1992
The same day Bouwman was decided
State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
6 Where a defendant is granted leave to renew his motion for change of venue immediately before trial, but declines to do so, he waives “any right he may have had to a change of venue.” (where defendant is given opportunity to object to jurors after voir dire but does not do so, right to change of venue is waived).