Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 611.025 (2026)
Presumption Of Responsibility
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise provided by law, in every criminal proceeding, a person is presumed to be responsible for the person's acts and bears the burden of rebutting such presumption.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1981–2018 · leading case: State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 2000).
State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 2000). “[3] See generally Minn.Stat. § 611.025. If the prosecution had not proved all elements of respondent's crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a verdict of not guilty would have issued.”
State v. Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 1982). “Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (1980). Within this ambit of normality or sanity, jurors, relying on their sensory perceptions, experiences in life, and their common sense, consider the manifestations of the defendant's conduct and determine if the defendant formed the specific intent to…”
State v. Hoffman, 328 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. 1982). “Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (1980). Expert evidence is appropriate to assist the jury in making its determination.”
State v. Linder, 304 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. 1981). “" Section 611.025 provides that "in every criminal proceeding, a person is presumed to be responsible for his acts and the burden of rebutting such presumption is upon him.”
State v. Schreiber, 558 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. 1997). “Schreiber argues that, because psychiatric testimony on intent and premeditation is prohibited in the guilt phase of the trial, sanity is presumed and, as a result, in the mental illness phase, sanity becomes “irrebuttable” because the factfin-der has already found the defendant…”
State v. Peterson, 764 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2009). “1979)); see Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (2008). When reviewing the record to determine whether a defendant met his burden to prove mental illness, we conduct “a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support…”
State v. Ulm, 326 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. 1982). “Minn.Stat. § 611.025 (1980). The trial court concluded that Ulm had not sustained his burden of proof.”
Commonwealth v. Keita, 712 N.E.2d 65 (Mass. 1999). “§ 12-109 (b) (1994); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 611.025 (West 1987); Mo.”
State v. Bergstrom, 413 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “In a bifurcated trial, the first stage is the defendant’s plea of not guilty on the merits, and the second stage is on mental capacity (the plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness) of the defendant.”
State v. Hall, 915 N.W.2d 528 (2018). “Minn. Stat. § 611.025 (2016). The mental-illness defense is a question of fact to be resolved by the fact-finder, and "a finding that a defendant failed to meet his or her burden to prove a mental-illness defense should not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.