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. Fischer, 354 N.W.2d 29.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    20, 1988); rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    State v. Fischer , , review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The argument continued over the course of two days and the police 6 were contacted on three separate occasions , suggesting that appellant’s anger cannot be characterized as “transitory.” (calling it “a mockery to suggest [defendant’s] actions were spur -of-the-moment threats” when threatening behavior continued for six hours), review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (responding to defendant’s transitory-anger argument by stating that “[i]t is a mockery to suggest [defendant’s] actions were spur-of-the-moment threats” when those actions continued for almost six hours), review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A victim’s reaction to a defendant’s alleged threats “is ‘circumstantial evidence relevant to the element of intent of the defendant in making the threat.’” (citing Schweppe, 306 Minn. at 401, d at 614), review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • Bolinger v. State 647 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Bolinger v. State 647 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (declining to reach issue where argument is unsupported), review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    essing the defendant’s intent and motivation”); (later acts against victim relevant to show an “on-going pattern of appellant’s attempts to desensitize [the victim] to sexual abuse”); Elvin, d at 575 (“[e]vidence of previous domestic violence is admissible to illuminate the relationship between defendant and victim”); (evidence of defendant’s prior relationship with victims admissible to establish defendant’s intent and motive when terroristic threats were made), review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State v. Jeter 558 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Distinguished State v. Jeter 558 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    review denied (Minn. Dec.
  • State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
    See, (threatening by telephone to kill people while discharging firearms); (writing note threatening to kill victim and pointing finger at victim and drawing it across throat).
  • Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Effinger v. State 368 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Effinger v. State 368 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hines 354 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hines 354 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1984