victim defense in Minnesota

1991State v. Crace, 289 N.W.2d 54, 59 (Minn.1979).

1984Crace, supra; State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512 , 44 N.W.2d 61 (1950); Bolsinger, supra; State v. Kline, 168 Minn. 263 , 209 N.W. 881 (1926); State v. Peterson, 153 Minn. 310 , 190 N.W. 345 (1922).

1979Crace acknowledges that in State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 520 , 44 N.W.2d 61, 66 (1950), this court held that, “[c]ontributory negligence of the victim is not a defense in a criminal prosecution,” but asks this court to “reconsider” this rule.

1979Crace acknowledges that in State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 520 , 44 N.W.2d 61, 66 (1950), this court held that, “[c]ontributory negligence of the victim is not a defense in a criminal prosecution,” but asks this court to “reconsider” this rule.

2017In State v. Mathiasen, an accomplice testified that the defendant had taken a wallet during an altercation at a bar, and the wallet was later located by police where the accomplice said it would be. 267 Minn. 393, 396-97 , 127 N.W.2d 534, 537 (1964). 12 Exclusive of the accomplice testimony, the evidence established that the wallet was stolen during the time the victim was in the bar, the victim complained that his wallet was missing, and a physical altercation involving the victim and the defendant occurred.

2017In State v. Mathiasen, an accomplice testified that the defendant had taken a wallet during an altercation at a bar, and the wallet was later located by police where the accomplice said it would be. 267 Minn. 393, 396-97 , 127 N.W.2d 534, 537 (1964). 12 Exclusive of the accomplice testimony, the evidence established that the wallet was stolen during the time the victim was in the bar, the victim complained that his wallet was missing, and a physical altercation involving the victim and the defendant occurred.

2015See Minn. Stat. § 609.322 (2010); cf. State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Minn. App. 1995) (“[T]he victim’s sexual history is normally irrelevant in a sexual assault prosecution.”), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1996).

2010See Kirkham v. Will, 311 Ill.App.3d 787 , 244 Ill.Dec. 174 , 724 N.E.2d 1062, 1065 (2000) (“[I]t is not the view of the person provoking the dog that must be considered, but rather it is the reasonableness of the dog’s response to the action in question that actually determines whether provocation exists.”); Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 244 Mich.App. 263 , 625 N.W.2d 108, 115 (2001) (providing that the victim did not provoke the dog where the dog’s reaction was not a proportional response to the victim’s actions and where the victim had no warning of risk).

2010See Kirkham v. Will, 311 Ill.App.3d 787 , 244 Ill.Dec. 174 , 724 N.E.2d 1062, 1065 (2000) (“[I]t is not the view of the person provoking the dog that must be considered, but rather it is the reasonableness of the dog’s response to the action in question that actually determines whether provocation exists.”); Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 244 Mich.App. 263 , 625 N.W.2d 108, 115 (2001) (providing that the victim did not provoke the dog where the dog’s reaction was not a proportional response to the victim’s actions and where the victim had no warning of risk).

2010See Kirkham v. Will, 311 Ill.App.3d 787 , 244 Ill.Dec. 174 , 724 N.E.2d 1062, 1065 (2000) (“[I]t is not the view of the person provoking the dog that must be considered, but rather it is the reasonableness of the dog’s response to the action in question that actually determines whether provocation exists.”); Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 244 Mich.App. 263 , 625 N.W.2d 108, 115 (2001) (providing that the victim did not provoke the dog where the dog’s reaction was not a proportional response to the victim’s actions and where the victim had no warning of risk).

2010See Kirkham v. Will, 311 Ill.App.3d 787 , 244 Ill.Dec. 174 , 724 N.E.2d 1062, 1065 (2000) (“[I]t is not the view of the person provoking the dog that must be considered, but rather it is the reasonableness of the dog’s response to the action in question that actually determines whether provocation exists.”); Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 244 Mich.App. 263 , 625 N.W.2d 108, 115 (2001) (providing that the victim did not provoke the dog where the dog’s reaction was not a proportional response to the victim’s actions and where the victim had no warning of risk).

2005See United States v. Beaulieu, 194 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir.1999) (stating pre-Craw/hrd rule of admissibility requiring that medical interviewer "makes clear to the victim that the inquiry into the identity of the abuser is important to diagnosis and treatment”). .

2005See United States v. Beaulieu, 194 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir.1999) (stating pre- Crawford rule of admissibility requiring that medical interviewer "makes clear to the victim that the inquiry into the identity of the abuser is important to diagnosis and treatment"). [4] The authors add a category of non-testimonial statements that begs for interpretation, a statement made "with no recognition that it relates to criminal activity." Friedman, supra at 1241 n. 276.

2000See id. at 489-90 .

2000See id. at 489-90 .

1994The state finds support for the first argument in State v. Lohmeier, 390 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Minn.App.1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn., Oct. 29, 1986), where the court of appeals erroneously implied that the defendant’s testimony that he did not intend to kill the victim precluded an instruction on heat-of-passion manslaughter.

1994That implication, however, is directly contrary to what Justice Rogosheske said in the leading case of State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 417-19 , 228 N.W.2d 120, 123-24 (1975) (emphasis added): [0]ur reading of the record compels the conclusion that an instruction pursuant to defense counsel’s request on first-degree manslaughter should also have been submitted.

1994That implication, however, is directly contrary to what Justice Rogosheske said in the leading case of State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 417-19 , 228 N.W.2d 120, 123-24 (1975) (emphasis added): [0]ur reading of the record compels the conclusion that an instruction pursuant to defense counsel’s request on first-degree manslaughter should also have been submitted.