knowledge requirement in Minnesota

2024See, e.g., State v. Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d 816, 822 (Minn. 2012) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of -a- pistol-in-public statute); In re Welfare of C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802, 810 (Minn. 2000) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-knife-while-on-school-property statute); State v. Florine, 226 N.W.2d 609, 610 (1975) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-controlled-substance statute).

2014See Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 818 (possession of a pistol in public); In re C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 809 (possession of a knife on school grounds). 5 Because we have implied a knowledge requirement in other weapon possession statutes, respondents urge us to likewise imply such a requirement in the context of the burglary statute.

2024See, e.g., State v. Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d 816, 822 (Minn. 2012) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of -a- pistol-in-public statute); In re Welfare of C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802, 810 (Minn. 2000) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-knife-while-on-school-property statute); State v. Florine, 226 N.W.2d 609, 610 (1975) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-controlled-substance statute).

2015In re Welfare of C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn.2000), presented us with the question of whether to imply a knowledge requirement for the offense of felony possession of a dangerous weapon on school property, which on its face imposed strict liability. 1 We noted that knives are generally innocuous tools that “can be used for a myriad of completely benign purposes.” Id. at 810 .

2015See State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42 , 48 n. 3 (Minn.2004). .

2013See Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 822 (requiring knowing possession for a conviction of possession of a pistol in public); State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn.2004) (requiring knowing possession of drugs to be guilty of possessing drugs on school grounds); C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 810 (requiring knowing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); State v. Strong, 294 N.W.2d 319, 320 (Minn.1980) (requiring knowing possession for the charge of entering a prison with a weapon or a controlled substance); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , 226 N.W.2d -609, 610 (1975) (re

2007The court of appeals affirmed the gross negligence conviction but reversed the leaving-the-seene conviction, concluding that “[t]he legislature has not clearly indicated its intent to dispense with a mens rea requirement, and the district court should have implied a knowledge requirement as a matter of law.” State v. Al-Naseer, 678 N.W.2d 679, 696 (Minn.App.2004) (“Al-Naseer I”).

2006In reversing Al-Naseer’s conviction, this court considered this statutory language and held that “[t]he legislature has not clearly indicated its intent to dispense with a mens rea requirement” and concluded that “the district court should have implied a knowledge requirement as a matter of law.” State v. Al-Naseer, 678 N.W.2d 679, 696 (Minn.App.2004).

2024See, e.g., State v. Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d 816, 822 (Minn. 2012) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of -a- pistol-in-public statute); In re Welfare of C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802, 810 (Minn. 2000) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-knife-while-on-school-property statute); State v. Florine, 226 N.W.2d 609, 610 (1975) (reading a knowledge requirement into possession-of-a-controlled-substance statute).

2013See Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 822 (requiring knowing possession for a conviction of possession of a pistol in public); State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn.2004) (requiring knowing possession of drugs to be guilty of possessing drugs on school grounds); C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 810 (requiring knowing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); State v. Strong, 294 N.W.2d 319, 320 (Minn.1980) (requiring knowing possession for the charge of entering a prison with a weapon or a controlled substance); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , 226 N.W.2d -609, 610 (1975) (re

2023Id. at 606 .

2015“Mens rea is the element of a crime that requires 'the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal.’ ” State v. Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d 816, 818 (Minn.2012) (quoting Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605 , 114 S.Ct. 1793 , 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994)).

2024See, e.g., Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 819 (stating Strong “required the state to show that the defendant knew he possessed the item”); State v. Arkell, 672 N.W.2d 564, 568 (Minn. 2003) (stating Strong “required the state to show that the defendant had knowledge of possession of the offensive item”); C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 808 (stating Strong “required the state to show that the defendant had knowledge of possession of the offensive item”).

2017See Huber , 877 N.W.2d at 525 (“[T]he State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Huber knew the other person was going to commit ...(emphasis added)); Kelley, 855 N.W.2d at 283 (requiring the state to prove the defendant “knew his friend was going to commit the robbery” (emphasis added)); State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804, 810 (Minn. 2018) (requiring the state to prove that the defendant knew his alleged accomplices “were going to commit a crime” (emphasis added)); State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 683 (Minn. 2007) (requiring proof that the defendant “knew that his alleged accomplices wer

2017See Huber , 877 N.W.2d at 525 (“[T]he State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Huber knew the other person was going to commit ...(emphasis added)); Kelley, 855 N.W.2d at 283 (requiring the state to prove the defendant “knew his friend was going to commit the robbery” (emphasis added)); State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804, 810 (Minn. 2018) (requiring the state to prove that the defendant knew his alleged accomplices “were going to commit a crime” (emphasis added)); State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 683 (Minn. 2007) (requiring proof that the defendant “knew that his alleged accomplices wer

2017See Huber , 877 N.W.2d at 525 (“[T]he State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Huber knew the other person was going to commit ...(emphasis added)); Kelley, 855 N.W.2d at 283 (requiring the state to prove the defendant “knew his friend was going to commit the robbery” (emphasis added)); State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804, 810 (Minn. 2018) (requiring the state to prove that the defendant knew his alleged accomplices “were going to commit a crime” (emphasis added)); State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 683 (Minn. 2007) (requiring proof that the defendant “knew that his alleged accomplices wer

2017See Huber , 877 N.W.2d at 525 (“[T]he State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Huber knew the other person was going to commit ...(emphasis added)); Kelley, 855 N.W.2d at 283 (requiring the state to prove the defendant “knew his friend was going to commit the robbery” (emphasis added)); State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804, 810 (Minn. 2018) (requiring the state to prove that the defendant knew his alleged accomplices “were going to commit a crime” (emphasis added)); State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 683 (Minn. 2007) (requiring proof that the defendant “knew that his alleged accomplices wer

2016See State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650, 654-55 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012).

2016See State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650, 654-55 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012).

2016Id. at 41-42 , 167 N.W.2d at 7-8 (footnote omitted).

2016Id. at 41-42 , 167 N.W.2d at 7-8 (footnote omitted).

2016Evid. 702 provides that an expert may testify “in the form of an opinion” if the expert’s “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” “The knowledge requirement may be satisfied by either formal education or sufficient occupational experience.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., 578 N.W.2d 757, 761 (Minn. 1998). 6 Minnesota courts typically have been “liberal” in qualifying experts by virtue of their experience.

2016State v. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 90, 96 (Minn. 1990).

2015The court of appeals also concluded that a knowledge requirement would harmonize the clergy sexual conduct statute with “other provisions in section 609.344, which do not presume a vulnerable victim but require proof of the preexistence of a mental or emotional condition or that the actor uses deceptive conduct.” Wenthe III, 845 N.W.2d at 233 (citing State v. Bussmann, 741 N.W.2d 79, 88 (Minn.2007) (Hanson, J.) (plurality opinion)).

2015The court of appeals also concluded that a knowledge requirement would harmonize the clergy sexual conduct statute with “other provisions in section 609.344, which do not presume a vulnerable victim but require proof of the pre-existence of a mental or emotional condition or that the actor uses deceptive conduct.” Wenthe III, 845 N.W.2d at 233 (citing State v. Bussmann, 741 N.W.2d 79, 88 (Minn. 2007) (Hanson, J.) (plurality opinion)).

2015See State v. Finnegan, 784 N.W.2d 243 , 248 n. 3 (Minn.2010) (explaining that failure to raise an issue in the petition for review “waives the issue on appeal”); see also In re GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 699 N.W.2d 749, 757 (Minn.2005).

2015See State v. Finnegan, 784 N.W.2d 243 , 248 n. 3 (Minn.2010) (explaining that failure to raise an issue in the petition for review “waives the issue on appeal”); see also In re GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 699 N.W.2d 749, 757 (Minn.2005).

2013See Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 822 (requiring knowing possession for a conviction of possession of a pistol in public); State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn.2004) (requiring knowing possession of drugs to be guilty of possessing drugs on school grounds); C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 810 (requiring knowing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); State v. Strong, 294 N.W.2d 319, 320 (Minn.1980) (requiring knowing possession for the charge of entering a prison with a weapon or a controlled substance); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , 226 N.W.2d -609, 610 (1975) (re

2013See Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 822 (requiring knowing possession for a conviction of possession of a pistol in public); State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn.2004) (requiring knowing possession of drugs to be guilty of possessing drugs on school grounds); C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 810 (requiring knowing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); State v. Strong, 294 N.W.2d 319, 320 (Minn.1980) (requiring knowing possession for the charge of entering a prison with a weapon or a controlled substance); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , 226 N.W.2d -609, 610 (1975) (re

2013See Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 822 (requiring knowing possession for a conviction of possession of a pistol in public); State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn.2004) (requiring knowing possession of drugs to be guilty of possessing drugs on school grounds); C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d at 810 (requiring knowing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); State v. Strong, 294 N.W.2d 319, 320 (Minn.1980) (requiring knowing possession for the charge of entering a prison with a weapon or a controlled substance); State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104 , 226 N.W.2d -609, 610 (1975) (re

2010Like the knowledge requirement for a leaving-the-scene conviction, “[p]re~ meditation is a state of mind and, thus, generally proven through circumstantial evidence.” State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn.2005); see also State v. Hughes, 749 N.W.2d 307, 312 (Minn.2008) (“Because it ‘is a state of mind,’ premeditation is ‘generally proven through circumstantial evidence.’ ” (quoting Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 319, 321 )); see also Al-Naseer TV, 734 N.W.2d at 687 (“The proof of knowledge may be by circumstantial evidence.”).

2010Like the knowledge requirement for a leaving-the-scene conviction, "[p]remeditation is a state of mind and, thus, generally proven through circumstantial evidence." State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn.2005); see also State v. Hughes, 749 N.W.2d 307, 312 (Minn.2008) ("Because it `is a state of mind,' premeditation is `generally proven through circumstantial evidence.'" (quoting Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 319, 321 )); see also Al-Naseer IV, 734 N.W.2d at 687 ("The proof of knowledge may be by circumstantial evidence.").