Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Boitnott, 443 N.W.2d 527.

69 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Daryl Shannon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Rather, the question is, could a reasonable jury conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that, despite [such] facts, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from all the evidence, now viewed most favorably to the state, is one of intentional killing?”
State of Minnesota v. Travis Joel Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[I]ntent to cause death may be inferred from the manner of shooting.” (quotation omitted)); - 32 (Minn. 1989) (concluding that “a contact gunshot from a .22 revolver to the back of a person’s head” supported a finding of intent because it would be 13 “considered nearly as likely to cause death” as a similar shooting with a more powerful weapon).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Baker, III Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Baker, III Minn. 2024
10 self-defense claim in favor of the defendant’ ” ( n.2 (Minn. 1989))).
Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
Dakota County Anderson, J. ConState of Minnesota v. Gabriel Alfonso Sanchez Cruz Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lawrence Benson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“Intent is a state of mind and is, therefore, generally provable only by 10 inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”).
State of Minnesota Minn. 2021
We agree with the district court’s observation that “[t]he natural and probable 23 consequences of firing six shots into a person’s torso is that the person will die.” See Cooper, d at 179; (stating that intent to cause death “may be inferred from the manner of shooting”).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Youngstedt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (holding that the district court did not err in refusing to give an accident in struction where the jury was 9 adequately instructed on the element of intent); State v. Schluter , (holding that the district court did not err in refusing to give an accident inst
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
See, e.g., Thompson, d at 12-3 (declining to reduce murder to manslaughter on theory of imperfect self-defense); (stating that evidence suggesting the victim at times may have had the upper hand in the struggle with the initial aggressor was not a *413 legally sufficient withdrawal); -33 (Minn.1989) (holding that short break in armed trespasser's otherwise continuous stream of verbal threats and threatening gestures with his handgun did not constitute an actual or good faith effort to withdraw f
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
(stating that “[t]he process of *630 going forward with evidence is complete when the defendant submits reasonable evidence”); -73 (Minn.1986) (determining that there was no evidence that defendant, who was the original aggressor, had clearly-manifested the good-
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
Intent to cause death “may be inferred from the manner of shooting.” ().
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
State v. Torres 632 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2001
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
-31 (Minn.1989) (“Boitnott J”).
State v. Gustafson 610 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2000
State v. Gustafson 610 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2000
the court further held that “[bjecause the trial court correctly instructed the jury on intent, it did not err by not giving an accident instruction.” Gustafson, 1999 WL 308621 , at *3.
Boitnott v. State 582 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1998
Boitnott v. State 582 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1998
State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
“The defendant is not entitled to a new trial where it *28 can be said with certainty that the misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Porter, d at 365 ().
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
“Rather, the question is, could a reasonable jury conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that, despite [such] facts, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from all the evidence, now viewed most favorably to the state, is one of intentional killing?”
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
-59 (Minn.1991) (reviewing a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence and requiring a reasonable inference other than guilt); 78 (Minn.1985) (requiring that the evidence make a theory consistent with innocence seem unreasonable), cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
Further, while the defendant and the victim, who had a gun, were struggling, the defendant had a pistol pointed at the victim’s head.
State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
State v. Porter 526 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1995
(citing State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127-28 , ).
State v. Nelson 523 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Nelson 523 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Parsley 521 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Parsley 521 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Washington 521 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1994