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. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175.

225 citing documents.

  • State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
    (concluding that a brutal killing, including the infliction of post-mortem wounds, supports a premeditated murder verdict).
  • State v. Essex 838 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Essex 838 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    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.” (stating further that “the jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions”).
  • State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    (stating that the verdict is given due deference because the jury was in the best position to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses).
  • State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    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.”
  • State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
    Premeditation does not require “ ‘proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill.’ ” ().
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
    (relying on only evidence relating to the nature of the killing to affirm a finding of intent to kill).
  • State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
    § 609.18 (2010) (defining premeditation as “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission”); (“A finding of premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill, nor does it require any specific period of time for deliberation.”).
  • State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Ferrier 792 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ferrier 792 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Because direct evidence of intent is rarely available, intent generally must be proved “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
    *561 While “[a] finding of premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill,” or “require any specific period of time for deliberation,” the State “must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place,” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Intent is a state of mind “generally proved circumstantially — by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
    While “[a] finding of premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill,” or “require any specific period of time for deliberation,” the State “must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place,” (emphasis added).
  • Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
  • Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
    The specific facts underlying this case are detailed in our decision in Cooper’s direct appeal
  • State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
    However, it “does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill, nor does it require any specific period of time for deliberation.”
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
    “A finding of premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill, nor does it require any specific period of time for deliberation.”
  • State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
    “A finding of premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill, nor does it require any specific period of time for deliberation.” State v. Cooper
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    In reaching its verdict, “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 v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
    “A finding of premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill, nor does it require any specific period of time for deliberation.”
  • State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
    Premeditation “does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill, nor does it require any specific period of time for deliberation.”
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    And we leave to the jury’s discretion *616 any credibility determinations relating to the testimony by an acquaintance of David Pirsig that David Pirsig “got away with 40,000.” (stating that jury is in the best position to evaluate a witness’s credibility and to weigh the evidence).
  • State v. Noble 669 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2003