Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Charlton, 338 N.W.2d 26.

54 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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
18 (referencing entrapment as a defense requiring the burden of production, “which requires the defendant to come forward and present a sufficient threshold of evidence to make the defense one of the issues of the case”); (concluding that a “[d]efend
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Robbery is a specific -intent crime, requiring the state to prove the defendant had “[s] pecific intent, or a purposeful or conscious desire to bring about a criminal result .”
Minn. 2021
State v. Charlton , (“[T]he element of intent requires a conscious desire and purpose to bring about a criminal result.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
On the first element, the defendant bears the burden of production: “the defendant must raise the defense by showing by a fair preponderance of the evid ence—either through cross- 8 examination of the state’s witnesses or th rough defense testimony—that the government induced the commission of the crime.” State v. Charlton , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that a “lesser burden rests on a defendant pleading self -defense” and it is “one of production, which requires the defendant to come forward and present a sufficient threshold of evidence to make the defense one of the issues of the case”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellant’s argument that the district cour t erred in its jury instructions proceeds from the premise, based in caselaw, that one of the elements of first-degree aggravated robbery is that the defendant took property from another “know[ing] [that] he is not entitled to the property he takes.” -30 (Minn. 1983); State v. Sandve , State v. Bonga
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The supreme court held in State v. Charlton that “specific intent, or a purposeful or conscious desire to 4 bring about a criminal result, is an element of a robbery charge.” 1 Because appellant challenges intent, and intent is a product of the mind and is generally proved by circumstantial evidence, we apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.
State v. Garcia 927 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Garcia 927 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
29 (Minn. 1983) ; see also State v. Niska , , 264 (Minn. 1994) (restating that "defendants pleading self-defense or entrapment need only fairly raise those defenses and then the burden of disproving them beyond a reasonable doubt falls on the state").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Charlton , -30 (Minn. 1983); State v. Gundy , -65 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
& n.8 (Minn. 1983) (stating that supreme court has “implied that specific intent, or a purposeful or conscious desire to bring about a criminal result, is an element of a robbery charge” and noting that simple-robbery knowledge finding in earlier case “was based on indications of defendant’s reason and purpose
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1(2) (2000) reveals legislature’s desire to define crime as specific intent crime), aff'd on other grounds, (stating that specific intent requires person to have purpose or conscious desire to cause criminal result).
Coker v. Ludeman 775 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Coker v. Ludeman 775 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
4 (stating that a burden requiring a party to “come forward” is “one of production”).
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bjergum 771 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A crime is a specific-intent crime when it requires the state to prove that the defendant’s act was motivated by a “specific intent or purpose.” (stating that specific intent requires a person to have a purpose or conscious desire to cause a criminal result).
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
at 205 ; -31 (Minn.1983) (defendant had only burden- of production regarding claim of duress because otherwise he would be forced to- disprove or negate his intent to commit robbery where intent was element of crime).
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hage, d at 205 ; -31 (Minn.1983) (holding that defendant had only the burden of production regarding claim of duress because otherwise he would be *37 forced to disprove or negate Ms intent to commit robbery where intent was an element of the crime).
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The burden is one of- production, and “requires the defendant to come forward and present a sufficient threshold of evidence to make the defense one of the issues of the case.”
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
State v. Yang 644 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2002
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 205 ; -31 (Minn. 1983) (defendant had only burden of production regarding claim of duress because otherwise he would be forced to disprove or negate his intent to commit robbery where intent was element of crime).
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
See Auchampach, d at 817 (-31 (Minn.1983)); 1 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 1.8(b), at 68-71.
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
we stated that a defendant must meet an initial burden of production by producing threshold evidence that would make the defense of duress an issue in the case, thereby shifting the burden of persuasion to the state, where the crime charged was the specific intent crime of aggravated robbery.
State v. Orsello 554 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1996
State v. Orsello 554 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1996
(citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436-37 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
8 -31 (1983) (holding that defendant has initial burden of production with respect to issue of duress for specific intent crime; the burden then shifts back to the state to show lack of duress, or its converse, specific intent, because duress negates element of specific intent); d
State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Brodie 529 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-31 (Minn.1983); State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 96
State v. Niska 514 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1994
State v. Niska 514 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1994
we held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited shifting the burden of proof on the element of intent to a criminal defendant.
State v. Niska 499 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1993