DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

78 citing documents.

  • State v. Blair 402 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Blair 402 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cabrales 392 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Smith 374 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Smith 374 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    citing 2 D. Louisell and C. Mueller, Federal Evidence, § 139 (1978).
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Irby 368 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Willis 362 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Willis 362 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Turner 359 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Turner 359 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1984
    and State v. Swanson, 307 Minn. 412 , (affirming convictions notwithstanding the improper elicitation of such evidence).
  • State v. Johanson 358 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Johanson 358 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Abbott 356 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Abbott 356 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1984
    we discussed in detail the issue of admission of evidence of past acts of violence by the victim in those cases in which a defendant charged with assaulting or killing the victim wants to use the evidence to establish either that he reasonably feared the victim or that the victim was the aggressor.
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Rule 355 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    the supreme court explained self-defense by saying: The person may use force to defend himself against an assault if he believes it to be reasonably necessary and if it would appear to a reasonable person under similar circumstances to be reasonably necessary, with the amount of force used to defend hims
  • State v. Siverhus 355 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Siverhus 355 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1984
    The trial court excluded the evidence because it was “of doubtful probative value and extremely inflammatory and prejudicial.” The issue of admission of evidence of past acts of violence by the victim in a case in which a
  • State v. McGath 352 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. McGath 352 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    § 609.06(3) allows the use of reasonable force by a person “in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person.” The Minnesota Supreme Court, referring to the statutory provision, : The person may use force to defend himself against an assault if he believes it to be reasonably necessary and if it would appear to a reasonable person under similar circumstances to be reasonably necessary, with the amount of force used to defend himself being limited to that which a reasonable
  • State v. Morrison 351 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Morrison 351 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1984
    We have upheld this instruction in three recent cases:
  • State v. Edwards 343 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Edwards 343 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1984
    For a discussion of the admissibility on self-defense of evidence of the victim’s bad character