Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bland, 337 N.W.2d 378.

78 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
d 768, 784 (Minn. 2025) (outlining the requirements of self-defense: (1) the absence of aggression or 10 At trial, to support his request to admit evidence of Ellis-Strong’s prior bad acts.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
tim said, “I’m 15 going to kill that [woman]”); (victim tried to punch defendant); –24 (Minn. 2006) (victim kicked and shot defendant); (victim hit defendant); (victim punched defendant); (victim kicked defendant in the head); (victim police officer pushed defendant’s friend); –36 (Minn. 1978) (victim fired shots); (victim hit defendant with umbrell
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
405(a) , not in the form of specific prior violent acts , Penkaty, d at 202 ( 2 (Minn. 1983)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But 7 “evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence and quarrelsomeness may be admitted in self-defense cases for the purpose of determining (1) whether the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm or (2) who was the aggressor.” (emphasis omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 378, 382 (Minn. 1983).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Undra Lewis Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Undra Lewis Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying the rule to a homicide case); (noting the admission of reputation evidence in assault cases).
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that a person can use “only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared”).
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
we held that no prejudicial error occurred where a prosecutor discussed expected testimony in his opening statement but did not produce such evidence in the trial.
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
(applying Caron standard, using failure to object as a factor, and finding that the error was harmless), (discussing “plain error” in the context of analyzing unobjected-to prose-cutorial misconduct), (same).
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Basting, d at 285-86 (Minn.1997) (considering evidence of victim’s and defendant’s respective physical attributes, defendant’s training as professional boxer, and that only victim sustained injuries in fight); (allowing evidence of victim’s reputation for violence and quarrelsome tendency to determine whether defendant was put in fear of imminent bodily harm or which party was aggressor); Baker, 280 Minn. at 526 , d at 245 (stating defendant’s lack of injuries probative)
State v. Vazquez 644 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See State *807 v. Bland, (evidence of victim’s character admissible to show intent, knowledge, or plan, but not to show that victim acted in conformity with his bad character).
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
For a discussion of some of the basic principles governing the admission of evidence offered by an accused of the bad character of the victim, -84 (1983).
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
404(a)(2), which governs evidence of a victim’s character offered to prove the victim was the first aggressor
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
see Johanson v. Pung, 795 F.2d 48 (8th Cir.1986).
Johanson v. State 404 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johanson v. State 404 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1987