Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 325.
-
A24-0593
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
20, 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
20, 2004); (affirming downward durational departure when defendant had borderline mental disability, was chemically dependent, and suffered from severe depression during offense), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
- State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
20, 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
-
Peter Devonn Crosby, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(granting a downward duration al departure where defendant suffered from “the psychosis of paranoid schizophrenia ”); State v. Barsness , (affirming downward durational departure where defendant was suffering from major depression at the time of the offense); , 25 (Minn. 1984) (reversing district court’s imposition of upward durational departure where defendant had a nearly 20 -year documented hi
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The degree to which [a defenda nt] lack[s] substantial capacity for judgment is the type of factual issue best decided by the [district] court.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984) (concluding that upward durational departure was inappropriate where 7 the defendant had a lack of substantial capacity due to schizophrenia) ; review denied (Minn. Aug.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
20, 2004), review denied (Minn. Aug.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Durfee , -86 (Minn. 1982) (despite appellant’s admission that child’s injuries constituted great bodily harm, photos remained admissible becau se the real issue was whether defendant intentionally caused that harm); (despite appella nt’s offer to stipulate, dist rict court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photo and videotape evidence because they were relevant), review denied (Minn. Aug.
- Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-28 (Minn. App. 1991) (stating that intentional murder is much broader than premeditated murder because it does not require purpose or design but can be committed if the defendant believes that his actions would result in death), review denied (Minn. Aug.
- Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
-
Arredondo v. State
754 N.W.2d 566
Minn. 2008
5 rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
- State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
State v. Martinson
671 N.W.2d 887
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(holding that mentally retarded defendant who was found guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter qualified for downward sentencing departure), review denied (Minn. Aug.
- State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. Stillday
646 N.W.2d 557
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, -86 (Minn.1982) (deciding that the district court did not err by allowing proof of the victim’s injuries, including photographs regardless of defendant’s offer to stipulate); (holding that the state was not required to accept a stipulation on the cause of an infant’s death and could present photographs and videotape relevant to the issue), review denied (Minn. Aug.
- State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
State v. Matelski
622 N.W.2d 826
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, -86 (Minn.1982) (defense could not stipulate *833 that victim suffered great bodily harm so that photographs would not be admitted into evidence); (state not required to accept stipulation as to cause of death of infant so as to prevent photographs from being admitted into evidence), review denied (Minn. Aug.
- State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992