DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

84 citing documents.

  • Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990
  • Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Barsness 446 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Criticized State v. Barsness 446 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    In those cases cited by the dissent in which appellate courts have not criticized such “preliminary” admission of diminished capacity evidence, there was no reason to reach a ruling that must be addressed in this case.
  • State v. Rice 411 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Rice 411 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (standard for establishing harmless error).
  • State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    While a may appear to support this contention, upon closer analysis it must fail.
  • State v. Forbord 398 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Forbord 398 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Expert testimony on capacity could only be admitted when a defendant raised the insanity defense.”
  • State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Clark 375 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Error in the reception of evidence will only be disregarded “if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction,” or when the defendant’s guilt was “conclusively proven.” State v. *63 Fratzke, ( State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409 , 141 N.W.
  • State v. Gonzales-Guerrero 364 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Gonzales-Guerrero 364 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1985
    the defendant, immediately after killing someone, told a companion, who witnessed the crime, not to worry about it because “[t]hey never caught me for the last one seven years ago.” We ruled that the evidence was relevant because it showed the defendant’s capacity to act intentionally.
  • State v. Frank 364 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Frank 364 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Stephenson 361 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Stephenson 361 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
    Cases applying Rule 403 (relevant contemporaneous statement of defendant indicating involvement in prior crime and tending to show that the charged crime was intentional); (relevant evidence of statement of defendant before a crime indicating involvement both in other crime and in charge