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.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2023 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. Harrisgreen2 sentences2023Id. (“That the jury convicted [the defendant] of the greater offense, despite the availability of the lesser offense or ‘third option,’ indicates that [the defendant] suffered no prejudice from the denial of the second-degree felony murder instruction.”). 2010See State v. Harris, 713 N.W.2d 844, 851 (Minn.2006) (“That the jury convicted Harris of the greater offense, despite the availability of the lesser offense or ‘third option,’ indicates that Harris suffered no prejudice from the denial of the second-degree felony murder instruction.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shepherdgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Shepherd, 477 N.W.2d 512, 514-516 (Minn.1991) (holding that when the jury was instructed as to first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and first-degree heat of passion manslaughter, and the jury returned a verdict of first-degree premeditated murder, the defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s failure to give a second-degree felony murder instruction). 2006See State v. Shephered, 477 N.W.2d 512, 516 (Minn.1991) (stating that “the fact that the jury concluded that there was premeditated intent to kill, even though they could have opted for either of the lesser included offenses actually submitted to them, is a strong and sufficient indication that the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to have second degree felony murder submitted”); State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99,105 (Minn.1978) (determining that when the district court instructed the jury on first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder, the failure to give req | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dimmickgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 129-30 (finding that a defendant who robbed a victim, stabbed her 35 times, and left her to die is not entitled to a second-degree felony murder instruction because there is no rational basis for a jury to acquit of first-degree felony murder). 2010Id. at 129-30 (finding that a defendant who robbed a victim, stabbed her 35 times, and left her to die is not entitled to a second-degree felony murder instruction because there is no rational basis for a jury to acquit of first-degree felony murder). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Merrillgreen1 sentence2006See State v. Shephered, 477 N.W.2d 512, 516 (Minn.1991) (stating that “the fact that the jury concluded that there was premeditated intent to kill, even though they could have opted for either of the lesser included offenses actually submitted to them, is a strong and sufficient indication that the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to have second degree felony murder submitted”); State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99,105 (Minn.1978) (determining that when the district court instructed the jury on first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder, the failure to give req | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dahlingreen1 sentence2006See State v. Shephered, 477 N.W.2d 512, 516 (Minn.1991) (stating that “the fact that the jury concluded that there was premeditated intent to kill, even though they could have opted for either of the lesser included offenses actually submitted to them, is a strong and sufficient indication that the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to have second degree felony murder submitted”); State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99,105 (Minn.1978) (determining that when the district court instructed the jury on first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder, the failure to give req | 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. Prtine
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.