Cited by

Because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by considering a defendant’s actions “in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

(stating intent “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”).

A factfinder may infer intent “from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

Although Minnesota does not recognize imperfect self-defense, it can be considered as a mitigating factor.

See State v. Thompson , (stating intent “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surround ing circumstances”).

Intent is generally established by draw ing inferences “from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

Intent “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surround ing circumstances.”

Cf. State v. Thompson , -12 (Minn. 1996) (determining that intent to kill is the only reasonable inference when defendant point ed a pistol at victim’s head and pulled the trigger).

He argues that “there is no direct evidence here of [his] intent to offer to hire someone to engage in sex.” Intent is a state of mind that “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’ s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” s ee also State v. Johnson , (noting that intent is “proved circumstantially, by inference from words and acts of the actor both before and after the incident”).

Intent is a state of mind that “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

Intent “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circum stances.”

Intent “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

“[B]ecause intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

“[B]ecause 5 intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” d 8, 11 (Minn. 1996).

Intent “is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

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).

“[B]ecause intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

“[B]ecause intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (“[A] showing of sexual intent does not require direct evidence of 4 the defendant’s desires or gratification because a subjective sexual intent typically must be inferred from the nature

Intent generally requires proof by circumstantial evidence, and juries can infer intent by considering a defendant’s “words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

25, 1999); (noting the court “has allowed intent to kill to be shown by a single gunshot fired at close range”); (finding sufficient evidence of intent to kill where “defendant fired three shots, the last two at close range and with the gun pointed at the victim”).

we refused to reduce the appellant’s conviction from first-degree murder to heat-of-passion manslaughter, noting that appellant had “provoked the situation which made self-defense necessary and in no way withdrew from that situation.” Id.