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. Noble 669 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
    “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. Davis 656 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Davis 656 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
    the state argues that the jury was not bound by statements made before the killing.
  • State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
    We have held that a “jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions * * *.”
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Thomas 590 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Thomas 590 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1999
    9(4) (1998); (stating that "the [fact finder] may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions”).
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
    “[T]he jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.”
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Hough 585 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Hough 585 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1998
    9(4) (1996); (stating that factfinder may infer that the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions).
  • State v. Dimmick 586 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Dimmick 586 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1998
    (court found defendant’s argument that his intent was solely to incapacitate the victim when he shot him below the waist no less than twelve times with a semi-automatic weapon was without merit).
  • State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (upholding .sufficiency of evidence where jury “could have easily concluded” that only reasonable inference was intentional killing).