Cited by

(remanding for a new trial following legally inconsistent verdicts).

For example, we held that guilty verdicts for both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree manslaughter were legally inconsistent because the first offense required the jury to find that the death was caused with premeditation and intent, while the second offense required the jury to find that the

State v. Moore , -95 (Minn. 1990); State v. Juelfs , -74 (Minn. 1978)

-95 (Minn. 1990) (reversing and remanding for a new trial in part because guilty verdicts for both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree manslaughter were inconsistent).

Knoll argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the jury’s verdicts in his case were legally inconsistent.

-74 (Minn. 1978); - 95 (Minn. 1990).

Bolstad argues that section 611.02 can be used to correct a sentence

State v. Moo re (Moore II ), .

(“Moore I”); -95 (Minn. 1990) (“Moore II”) (reversing and remanding for a new trial because guilty verdicts for both first-degree premeditated murder and second- degree manslaughter were inconsistent).

(recognizing that conceding guilt on a lesser-included offense to persuade the jury to acquit on the most -severe offense is a reasonable strategy ).

State v. Moore , , 94 (Minn. 1990).

1(1) (2004), requires proof that one “either had a purpose to kill [the victim] or believed that his actions, if successful, would kill”); d 90, 94 (Minn. 1990) (“First de gree murder, like an attempted crime, is a specific attempt crime.”); (“An essential element of the crime of attempted second-degree murder is that appellant acted with intent to kill.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.

Culpable negligence for manslaughter is defined as “recklessness,” which is “intentional conduct which the actor may not intend to be harmful but which an ordinary and reasonably prudent man would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others.”

(sufficiency of expert qualifications generally rests in district court’s sound discretion).

A legally inconsistent verdict requires that ’two guilty verdicts be mutually exclusive; See, (‘We are unable to reconcile the jury’s findings that [the] defendant caused the death of his wife with premeditation and intent and at the same time caused that death through negligence or reckless conduct.”).

See, (“We are unable to reconcile the jury’s findings that [the] defendant caused the death of 2 The district court noted that appellant had testified that this amount was paid from A.C.’s bank account for repairs to appellant’s truck, which he had since s

(noting that “[a]n attempted crime is a specific intent crime” and that “one cannot attempt to commit negligent or reckless acts.”).

-53 (Minn. 2001) (remanding for new trial when defense counsel acknowledged defendant’s guilt to aiding and abetting attempted aggravated robbery in attempt to avoid first-degree murder conviction); (granting new trial when defendant testified that he accidentally shot the victim, but defense counsel conceded in closing argument that defendant committed an intentional heat-of-passion crime).

can only be made by the defendant.” (quotation omitted); see Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct.

1(1), requires proof that one “either had a purpose to kill [the victim] or believed that his actions, if successful, would kill”); (“First degree murder, like an attempted crime, is a specific intent crime.”).

Wiplinger, d at 861 ; (concluding that defendant acquiesced to defense counsel’s understandable strategy of conceding the defendant killed the victim in the hopes of obtaining acquittal on charge of first-degree premeditated murder); (noting that “the motivation for counsel’s argument cannot be condemned” when the State’s evidence about the position of the victim’s body “effectively destroyed defendant’s story of an accident” and defense counsel was attempting to concede defendant’s guilt of the

2; -96 (Minn.1990) (ruling that defendant who successfully claims that he was found guilty by legally inconsistent verdicts is entitled to a new trial).