Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Patch, 329 N.W.2d 833.

50 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Martin, d at 486 (“[M]ental illness caused by voluntary intoxication is not a defense.”); State v. Patch , State v. Clarken
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
to support the proposition that each purpose under element two of the kidnapping statute is an actual element that requires jury unanimity.
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
based on the same act,” and (2) to bar “the prosecutor from exaggerating the criminality of the defendant’s conduct by obtaining two convictions of the same offense simply because the defendant’s single act violated two different provisions of the same statute.”
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
However, “[t]he mere fact that the jury has the power to acquit irrationally in the teeth of overwhelming evidence of guilt may not be used as the reason for submitting lesser offenses.”
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
(holding that “a defendant’s insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense”); (citing City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 306 Minn. 462 , ).
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(noting state cannot avoid application of rule by fashioning separate counts).
State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1 (1994) (authorizing convictions either for charged offenses or for included offenses, but not both); (vacating a conviction based on the state’s agreement that the conviction violated the statutory prohibition against additional convictions for included offenses).
State v. Gorman 532 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Gorman 532 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Griffin 518 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1994
State v. Griffin 518 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1994
As we have said a number of times, “The mere fact that the jury has the power to acquit irrationally in the teeth of overwhelming evidence of guilt may not be used as the reason for submitting lesser offenses.”
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bahri 514 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Larsen 413 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 422 , -26 (1975)).
State v. Crocker 409 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1987
State v. Crocker 409 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1987
Marriage of Lee v. Lee 405 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lee v. Lee 405 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
If a trial court were to submit a lesser offense simply because “[a] jury has the power to acquit irrationally in the teeth of overwhelming evidence of guilt,” it runs the risk that the verdict will be based on sympathy for the defendant rather than on the evidence.
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
If a trial court were to submit a lesser offense simply because “[a] jury has the power to acquit irrationally in the teeth of overwhelming evidence of guilt,” it runs the risk that the verdict will be based on sympathy for the defendant rather than on the evidence.
Bellcourt v. State 390 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1986
Bellcourt v. State 390 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1986
If a trial court were to submit a lesser offense simply because “[a] jury has the power to acquit irrationally in the teeth of overwhelming evidence of guilt,” it runs the risk that the verdict will be based on sympathy for the defendant rather than on the evidence.
State v. Werman 388 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Werman 388 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1709 , 18 L.Ed.2d 864 (1967))
State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376
State v. Jackson 363 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1985
State v. Jackson 363 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1985
State v. Morgan 358 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Morgan 358 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Goodridge 352 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1984
State v. Goodridge 352 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
Defendant’s contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to submit criminal sexual conduct in the third degree as a