Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bock, 490 N.W.2d 116.

33 citing documents.

Alexander James King, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 845; (“Because intent is a state of mind, it is generally determined by inferences drawn from the person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Lisa Marie Parkos, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[I]ntent is a state of mind” that “is generally determined by inferences drawn from the person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
William Jay Tietz, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Because intent is a state of mind, it is generally determined by inferences drawn from the person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Corey Gregory Crowe and OBO Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Because intent is a state of mind, it is generally determined by inferences drawn from the person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
In discussing Parker's claim that the zone-of-privacy factor applies only when one of the two rationales is present, (Minn.App.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
do not reach the level of proof necessary to show ineffective assistance of counsel.” (denying ineffective-assistan ce claim that was based on defendant’s unsupported assertions that his trial counsel failed to adequately inform him of pretrial preparations and initiated minimal contact with him prior to trial), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (“[Eight] blows shows that the act was intentional, and the use of a heavy object on the victim’s head shows that the assailant intended to kill.” (citation omitted)); (“The nature of [the victim’s] 7 injuries and the severity of the blows to his head are evidence of [the defendant’s] intent to kill.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Lucas Heikkila, individually and o/b/o Minor Children v. Jeff Dietman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lucas Heikkila, individually and o/b/o Minor Children v. Jeff Dietman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ct court also found that the nature of the threats, including comments such as “I will find him,” and threats to run respondent over, established that the statements were “clearly intended to be intrusive.” “Because intent is a state of mind, it is generally determined by inferences drawn from the person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In State v. Bock, this court affirmed an upward departure where the defendant “spent a great deal of time planning to attack [the victim] when he was alone in the middle of the night, a time when he was most vulnerable.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
D.2.b.(1) (1996) (“The victim was particularly vulnerable due to age, infirmity, or reduced physical or mental capacity, which was known or should have been known to the offender.”); (finding that the victim was particularly vulnerable when he was attacked in the middle of the night while alone, fell from the impact of appellant’s first blow, and was dazed and in a vulnerable condition when appellant hit him a second time), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Similarly, review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(no relief for procedural error required absent demonstration of prejudice), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ure from the sentencing guidelines appears appropriate, and the court has not previously notified the parties or counsel for the parties that the court is considering departure, the court shall forward notification of such consideration at the time the sentencing worksheet and any presentence investigation report is forwarded.” Brennan hinges his argument on this court’s review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Chuon 596 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Chuon 596 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See, (holding that two separate severe blows to head proved intent to kill), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, (victim assaulted in his front yard), review denied (Minn. Aug.
In Re the Welfare of K.C. 513 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Welfare of K.C. 513 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(claim on direct appeal lacked factual support); (bare allegations of inadequate preparation insufficient), pet.
State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993