Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 405 N.W.2d 224.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Instead, to support his position that the teenager’s in-court identification implicates his due-process rights.
State of Minnesota v. Me'Darian Ledale McGruder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Me'Darian Ledale McGruder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(holding that intent to cause death may be inferred from the manner of shooting); see also State v. Campbell, 161 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“did not regard” Williams “as an armed and dangerous suspect.” (stating that weighing the evidence is for the fact-finder).
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
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Importantly, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[i] dentification testimony need not be positive and certain; it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.” (quotations omitted) (concluding that a witness’s statement that the witness was only “kin d of sure, pretty sure” that Harris was involved sufficiently corroborated the accomplice’s testimony to affirm the conviction).
Minn. 2020
“Intent to kill may be inferred from the manner of the killing.” 12 see also State v. Harris , (finding intent to kill after considering the severity of injuries to the victim); (noting that in tent to cause death “may be inferred from the manner of shooting the victim”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Where evidence of corr oboration appears its weight and credibility is for the jury .” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
viewed him seated at counsel table during trial, her memory “would have been unfairly jogged by having seen his photo in the lineup.” 11 “A claim of a due process violation depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confrontation.” (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, –12 (Minn. 1996) (holding that jury could infer intent to kill from the way the defendant shot the victim); (holding that jury’s finding of intent to kill was supported when defendant shot the victim in head at close range).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harvey Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harvey Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A jury may infer a person's intent to kill from the nature of the killing.” (); (noting that intent can be inferred where the gun was fired at the victim at close range).
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
Hall, d at 477 ; (concluding that intent to kill was proven when defendant shot victim in the head from three or four feet away with a shotgun).
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
Intent to cause death “may be inferred from the manner of shooting.” ().
State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Her 668 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Chuon 596 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Chuon 596 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(firing of sawed-off shotgun at victim’s head from less than six feet sufficient evidence to prove intent to kill).
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
Accordingly, “intent to cause death may be inferred from the manner of shooting.” Boitnott, d at 531 ().
State v. Bickham 485 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1992
State v. Bickham 485 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1992
See State v. Campbell, 281 Minn. 1, 13 , (one who obtains a loaded handgun for the purpose of carrying out a robbery raises a permissible inference of intent to kill); (intent may be inferred from the way victim was shot).
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
Minn. Stat. § 609.02 , subd.
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shoop 429 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Obasi 427 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Obasi 427 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, (sawed off shotgun fired less than 6 feet from victim sufficient to show intent).