Cited by

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

225 citing documents.

Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
generally must be proved ‘by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Yahye Elmi Abdisalan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Yahye Elmi Abdisalan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A fact-finder “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 [fact-finder] if his acts demonstrated a contrary intent.” (citing State v. Lundstrom, 285 Minn. 130, 140, -25 (1969)).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cody John Opheim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cody John Opheim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Although Opheim did not testify that he intended to cause fear of immediate bodily harm, it may be inferred that “a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.” State v. Cooper, 10
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee Allford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee Allford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It may be inferred that “a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rochelle Denise Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lee Trotter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lee Trotter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Areial Jean Stoecker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Areial Jean Stoecker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that intent is a state of mind that is generally proved circumstantially).
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A defendant’s intent, as a state of mind, is generally proven circumstantially, “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
It may be inferred that “a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Intent is a state of mind that is generally proven circumstantially “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (stating that it may be inferred “that a person intends the natural and probable 8 consequences of his actions”); (“Intent [to murder] may be inferred from the manner of the killing.”)
State of Minnesota v. Momat Ali Jagne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Momat Ali Jagne Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(providing that a jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility 5 of witnesses and weigh the evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Edward Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Andrew Edward Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
It may be inferred that “a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The fact-finder “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.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that facts elicited during a plea colloquy may suffice to infer guilt), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In general, intent 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. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
While a “series of shots or blows” does not itself support a finding of premeditation, numerous blows can indicate premeditation when supported by additional evidence, such as evidence of a “long and severe attack.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 175, 179 (Minn. 1997) (stating that because the intent element of a crime involves a state of mind, it is generally proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (taking into account the number of shots fired and the location of the shooter in its intent determination).
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014