Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bellcourt v. State, 390 N.W.2d 269.

104 citing documents.

State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
“The determination of what, if any, lesser offense to submit to the jury lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.”
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Arrendondo 531 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1995
State v. Arrendondo 531 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1995
[]; , 771 n. 3 (Minn.1986).
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. Griffin 510 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Griffin 510 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
Under the res gestae theory, the felony murder rule is applied if the “ ‘felony and the killing * * * are parts of one continuous transaction.’ ” (quoting Kochevar v. State.
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The trial court has discretion to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, “but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.”
State v. Nielsen 467 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1991
State v. Nielsen 467 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1991
In Minnesota the felony-murder rule applies whenever the felony and the homicide “are parts of one continuous transaction.” [ , 686-87 n. 4 (Minn.1979) ].
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518, 522
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
Explained State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
“The determination of what, if any, lesser offense to submit to the jury lies within the sound discretion of the trial court [citations omitted], but where the evidence warrants an instruction, the trial court must give it.”
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518, 522
State v. Livingston 420 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. French 402 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. French 402 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“In many cases, the felony-murder rule can apply even though the underlying felony is complete.”
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated: The test used in determining whether to submit a lesser-included offense to a jury is whether the evidence provides a rational basis for an acquittal on the offense charged and a conviction on the lesser *852 offense.
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“There is no question that third-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, and second-degree manslaughter are all lesser-included offenses of first-degree murder.”