Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175.

226 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Patrick Breslan Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ling Zhou Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Zachariah Steven Marczak Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Richard Preston Blackwell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Deon Dell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The supreme court held in State v. Charlton that “specific intent, or a purposeful or conscious desire to 4 bring about a criminal result, is an element of a robbery charge.” 1 Because appellant challenges intent, and intent is a product of the mind and is generally proved by circumstantial evidence, we apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Duviaze Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially —by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Cooper
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Casillas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially—by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances,” and that when considering circumstantial evidence of intent, “the jury may infer that a person int
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Dwane Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Zane David Foley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christopher O'Brien Bogan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Intent is a state of mind and must generally be proved by circumstantial evidence, which requires the fact-finder to make an inference based on “the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Cooper
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Delorien Robert Daniel Chatman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tory Larae Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that intent is generally established by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Windell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially —by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Cooper
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
See State v. Cooper , , 179 (Minn. 1997) ("Because intent and premeditation are states of mind, they are generally proved circumstantially-by drawing inferences from the defendant's words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.").
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Muqtar Jaranow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Beckstrand Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“In reaching its conclusion, the jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions and a defendant’s statements as to his intentions are not binding on the jury if his acts demonstrated a contrary intent.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Ventura Hernandez Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumstantial e v i d e n c e ) .
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Ann Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ozell Ellis Lashaun Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A fact-finder can also infer that an actor “intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. George Anthony Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Gloria Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2018
17, 201 2); (recognizing that because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by circumstantial ev idence).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Nicholas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, 01 (Minn. 2017); State v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction ba sed on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny); State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumst antial evidence).
Rachael Michelle Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting th at because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved circumstantially via inferences drawn from the actor’s words and actions in the context of the entire occurrence).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and acts in light of the totality of the circumstances, State v. Cooper , “and the events leading up to and immediately following the crime,”
State of Minnesota v. Tymaine Lee Muckle Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating intent is generally proved through circumstantial evidence) .
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Although she testified that she did not intend to knock over the bin, the jury was free to “infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of [her] actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Emmanuel Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dion Lavell Abrams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Lee Plantenberg Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 (defining second -degree assault); State v. Cooper , (stating that “the jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions”).
State of Minnesota v. Lance Cedric Carr Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Intent is a state of mind generally proved through circumstantial evidence “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Saleem McKeever Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Elaine Quirt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(clarifying that heightened scrutiny applies both to cases in which all of the evidence is circumstantial and to cases in which only one element of the offense is proved by circumstantial evidence); (recognizing that because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alexander Lott Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Intent is a state of mind that is generally proved using circumstantial evidence ‘by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.’” (), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Dax Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Because intent is a state of mind, it can be proved circumstantially “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
Ravy Nov v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ravy Nov v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Marie Buhs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Marie Buhs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 175, 179 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially— by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Bernard Zuckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Bernard Zuckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Intent is “generally proved circumstantially—by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”