DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shepherd, 477 N.W.2d 512.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
  • State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
    Dahlin , d at 598 (quoting State v. Shepherd , , 516 (Minn. 1991) ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    (d 512, 516 (Minn. 1991)).
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
    demonstrated that the jury would not have found the defendant guilty of unintentional felony murder.” Dahlin, d at 599 ().
  • State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
    ionship with another man, which upset the defendant, supported inference of premeditation); (evidence that defendant’s relationship with the victim had deteriorated, that defendant was angry with the victim, and that defendant had argued with the victim the night before the killing supported a determination of premeditation); (noting that jury could have reasonably credited evidence of defendant’s previous statements about wanting to kill the victim).
  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
    -516 (Minn.1991) (holding that when the jury was instructed as to first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and first-degree heat of passion manslaughter, and the jury returned a verdict of first-degree premeditated murder, the defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s failure to give a
  • State v. Harris 713 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Harris 713 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2006
    (stating that “the fact that the jury concluded that there was premeditated intent to kill, even though they could have opted for either of the lesser included offenses actually submitted to them, is a strong and sufficient indication that the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to have second
  • State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
    Further, we have stated that “the failure to submit lesser-included offenses to the jury is grounds for reversal only if the defendant is prejudiced thereby.” (citing Bellcourt, d at 273 ).
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
    Id.; see, (arguing with the victim the night before the killing, the deterioration of the defendant and victim’s relationship, and being angry with victim indicate premeditation); State *711 v. Shepherd, (noting that defendant had previously made statements about wanting to kill the victim).
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    § 609.20(1); (premeditated murder) ( (also premeditated murder)).
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993