Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Odellgreen2 sentences2016The mental-illness defense in Minnesota follows the M’Naghten rule, 3 see State v. Odell, 676 N.W.2d 646, 647 (Minn.2004), which is codified by statute: *868 No person having a mental illness or cognitive impairment so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense shall be tried, sentenced, or punished for any crime; but the person shall not be excused from criminal liability except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act the person was laboring under such a defect of reason, from one of these causes, as not to know the nature of the act, or 2016The mental-illness defense in Minnesota follows the M’Naghten rule, 3 see State v. Odell, 676 N.W.2d 646, 647 (Minn.2004), which is codified by statute: *868 No person having a mental illness or cognitive impairment so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense shall be tried, sentenced, or punished for any crime; but the person shall not be excused from criminal liability except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act the person was laboring under such a defect of reason, from one of these causes, as not to know the nature of the act, or | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dhaemersgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., State v. Dhaemers, 276 Minn. 332, 339 , 150 N.W.2d 61, 66 (1967) ("While we agree that the M’Naghten rule should have been discarded with the horse and buggy * * *."); State v. Eubanks, 277 Minn. 257, 263-64 , 152 N.W.2d 453, 457 (1967) ("While we do not imply that the defense did not present a convincing case for the fact that the M'Naghten rule is an ancient and archaic tool for criminal responsibility * * *.”). 2003See, e.g., State v. Dhaemers, 276 Minn. 332, 339 , 150 N.W.2d 61, 66 (1967) ("While we agree that the M’Naghten rule should have been discarded with the horse and buggy * * *."); State v. Eubanks, 277 Minn. 257, 263-64 , 152 N.W.2d 453, 457 (1967) ("While we do not imply that the defense did not present a convincing case for the fact that the M'Naghten rule is an ancient and archaic tool for criminal responsibility * * *.”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Finngreen2 sentences2007See State v. Finn, 257 Minn. 138, 140, 100 N.W.2d 508, 510-11 (1960) (recognizing the codification of the M’Naghten rule). 2007See State v. Finn, 257 Minn. 138, 140, 100 N.W.2d 508, 510-11 (1960) (recognizing the codification of the M’Naghten rule). | 2 | 5 |
DeMars v. Stategreen2 sentences2009De-Mars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (citing State v. Malley, 285 N.W.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (Minn.1979)); see Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (2008). 2009De-Mars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (citing State v. Malley, 285 N.W.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (Minn.1979)); see Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
In re Disciplinary Action Against Rojasgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Roberts, 876 N.W.2d 863, 867 (Minn. 2016) (citing M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 8 Eng. 2026See State v. Roberts, 876 N.W.2d 863, 867 (Minn. 2016) (citing M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 8 Eng. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2009See State v. McLaughlin, 725 N.W.2d 703 , 708 n. 3 (Minn.2007). 2009See State v. McLaughlin, 725 N.W.2d 703 , 708 n. 3 (Minn.2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2007See Barnes, 713 N.W.2d at 333 . | 1 | 1 |
Bruestle v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Bruestle v. State, 719 N.W.2d 698, 704 (Minn.2006). 2007See Bruestle v. State, 719 N.W.2d 698, 704 (Minn.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Minn.1999); see also Minn.Stat. § 611.026. “[A] defendant must prove mental illness at the time of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence.” DeMars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984). 2004Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Minn.1999); see also Minn.Stat. § 611.026. “[A] defendant must prove mental illness at the time of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence.” DeMars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barsnessgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 325, 329 (Minn.App.1991) (holding that mentally retarded defendant who was found guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter qualified for downward sentencing departure), review denied (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991). 2003See State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 325, 329 (Minn.App.1991) (holding that mentally retarded defendant who was found guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter qualified for downward sentencing departure), review denied (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eubanksgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., State v. Dhaemers, 276 Minn. 332, 339 , 150 N.W.2d 61, 66 (1967) ("While we agree that the M’Naghten rule should have been discarded with the horse and buggy * * *."); State v. Eubanks, 277 Minn. 257, 263-64 , 152 N.W.2d 453, 457 (1967) ("While we do not imply that the defense did not present a convincing case for the fact that the M'Naghten rule is an ancient and archaic tool for criminal responsibility * * *.”). 2003See, e.g., State v. Dhaemers, 276 Minn. 332, 339 , 150 N.W.2d 61, 66 (1967) ("While we agree that the M’Naghten rule should have been discarded with the horse and buggy * * *."); State v. Eubanks, 277 Minn. 257, 263-64 , 152 N.W.2d 453, 457 (1967) ("While we do not imply that the defense did not present a convincing case for the fact that the M'Naghten rule is an ancient and archaic tool for criminal responsibility * * *.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences1987Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d at 705 ; State v. Hoffman, 328 N.W.2d 709, 716 (Minn.1982). 4 . 1987Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d at 705 ; State v. Hoffman, 328 N.W.2d 709, 716 (Minn.1982). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindergreen2 sentences1987Minn. Stat. § 611.026 (1986); State v. Linder, 304 N.W.2d 902, 907 (Minn.1981). 1987Minn. Stat. § 611.026 (1986); State v. Linder, 304 N.W.2d 902, 907 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bouwmangreen2 sentences1985State v. Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d 703, 705 (Minn.1982); see Daniel M’Naghten’s case, 10 Clark & Finnelly 200, 8 Eng.Rep. 718. 1985State v. Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d 703, 705 (Minn.1982); see Daniel M’Naghten’s case, 10 Clark & Finnelly 200, 8 Eng.Rep. 718. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. 1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Malley
green
2 sentences2009De-Mars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (citing State v. Malley, 285 N.W.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (Minn.1979)); see Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (2008). 2009De-Mars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (citing State v. Malley, 285 N.W.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (Minn.1979)); see Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (2008). | 2 | 1987–2009 |
State v. Rawland
green
2 sentences2007Yet, in Rawland , we held that a defendant is permitted to introduce evidence regarding his vulnerability to "irresistible impulses,” and a factfinder may consider this evidence in determining whether a defendant meets the M’Naghten standard. 294 Minn, at 43-46, 199 N.W.2d at 789-90 . 9 . 2007Rowland, 294 Minn, at 31-35, 199 N.W.2d at 782-84 . | 2 | 1997–2007 |
State v. Gut
green
2 sentences1992It was adopted by this court in State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341 ( Gil. 315 ) (1868) and today is codified as Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (1990). 1992It was adopted by this court in State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341 ( Gil. 315 ) (1868) and today is codified as Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (1990). | 2 | 1981–1992 |
Schleicher v. State
green
2 sentences2007Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440 , 448 n. 7 (Minn.2006); Finn, 257 Minn, at 141-42, 100 N.W.2d at 511 . 11 . 2007Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440 , 448 n. 7 (Minn.2006); Finn, 257 Minn, at 141-42, 100 N.W.2d at 511 . 11 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
2 sentences1995He argues that even if this court concludes that he does not meet the M’Naghten test, his disturbed mental state at the time of the murders made Mm “less morally culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 322 , 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2949 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (holding that mental retardation was a mitigating factor to be considered by jurors in capital murder case). 1995He argues that even if this court concludes that he does not meet the M’Naghten test, his disturbed mental state at the time of the murders made Mm “less morally culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 322 , 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2949 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (holding that mental retardation was a mitigating factor to be considered by jurors in capital murder case). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Gray v. First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific R. R.
green
2 sentences1972State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 315 (341) (1868). 1972State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 315 (341) (1868). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Scott
neutral
2 sentences1972For a more complete discussion of the M’Naghten rule and its adoption in Minnesota, see, State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 365 , 43 N. W. 62 (1889); State v. Finn, 257 Minn. 138 , 100 N. W. 2d 508 (1960); and comment by the Advisory Committee on Revision of the Criminal Law appearing in Proposed Minnesota Criminal Code, p. 32 (1962). 1972For a more complete discussion of the M’Naghten rule and its adoption in Minnesota, see, State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 365 , 43 N. W. 62 (1889); State v. Finn, 257 Minn. 138 , 100 N. W. 2d 508 (1960); and comment by the Advisory Committee on Revision of the Criminal Law appearing in Proposed Minnesota Criminal Code, p. 32 (1962). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Simenson
neutral
2 sentences1972See, State v. Finn, 257 Minn. 138 , 100 N. W. 2d 508 (1960); State v. Simenson, 195 Minn. 258 , 262 N. W. 638 (1935); State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 365 , 43 N. W. 62 (1889). 1972See, State v. Finn, 257 Minn. 138 , 100 N. W. 2d 508 (1960); State v. Simenson, 195 Minn. 258 , 262 N. W. 638 (1935); State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 365 , 43 N. W. 62 (1889). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Leland v. Oregon
green
2 sentences1972In its last expression on the subject in 1952, the United States Supreme Court in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790 , 72 S. Ct. 1002 , 96 L. ed. 1302, with Justices Frankfurter and Black dissenting, refused to hold that the Oregon version of the M’Naghten rule violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1972In its last expression on the subject in 1952, the United States Supreme Court in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790 , 72 S. Ct. 1002 , 96 L. ed. 1302, with Justices Frankfurter and Black dissenting, refused to hold that the Oregon version of the M’Naghten rule violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Martin
green
2 sentences1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. 1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Shoffner
green
2 sentences1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. 1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. White
green
2 sentences1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. 1972See, for example, State v. White, 58 N. Mex. 324, 330, 270 P. 2d 727, 730 (1954); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 , 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966); State v. White, 93 Idaho 153 , 456 P. 2d 797 (1969); People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407 , 192 N. W. 2d 215 (1971); Pope v. United States, supra. From our review of the authorities, we have a strong impression that all courts and most textbook and law review writers are seeking the same answer to the same problem. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Anderson v. Grasberg
green
2 sentences1972It would be better if the statute were repealed so that the courts could develop rules for determining mental competency more in *36 harmony with advances made in this scientific field since the announcement of the M’Naghten rule in 1843.” In Anderson v. Grasberg, 247 Minn. 538 , 78 N. W. 2d 450 (1956), we rejected the M’Naghten rule in its application to civil cases. 1972It would be better if the statute were repealed so that the courts could develop rules for determining mental competency more in *36 harmony with advances made in this scientific field since the announcement of the M’Naghten rule in 1843.” In Anderson v. Grasberg, 247 Minn. 538 , 78 N. W. 2d 450 (1956), we rejected the M’Naghten rule in its application to civil cases. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.