Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martin, 591 N.W.2d 481.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
P. 20.02 is required, “a defendant must present prima facie evidence of mental illness.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To be excused from criminal liability due to mental illness, a defendant must prove that when he committed the offense he “was laboring under such a defect of reason, from [his mental illness], as not to know the nature of [his] act, or that it was wrong.” Minn. Stat. § 611.026 (2020)
State of Minnesota v. Tyson Joe Hinckley Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tyson Joe Hinckley Minn. 2024
The standard for whether a defendant has validly raised a
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Defendants have a due process right under the federal and Minnesota constitutions to assert a mental illness defense.” 7 U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-55 (Minn. 1976) (noting that voluntary intoxication is a defense only if a specific intent or purpose is an element of the charged offense); (noting that claim of temporary insanity caused by voluntary intoxication due to defendant’s use of alcohol or drugs not available as a defense).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Defendants have a due process right under the federal and Minnesota constitutions to assert a mental illness defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Warren Dean Schroyer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Warren Dean Schroyer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant seeking to raise this defense must first “allege threshold evidence of mental illness.”
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Burns 632 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burns 632 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ANALYSIS Construction of a procedural rule “is a question of law subject to de novo review.” (citations omitted).
State, City of Maple Grove v. Breuhl 615 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State, City of Maple Grove v. Breuhl 615 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
(appellant’s pretrial appeal).
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by