State v. Duke

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was not plain error to fail to define “intent to kill” because it is “a phrase of common meaning,” and a definition would not greatly enhance the jury’s understanding
• holding no plain error and stating that it is “not clear to us that it is an error of ‘fundamental law’ or ‘plain error’ for the trial court to fail to define ‘intent to kill,’ particularly where the definition that would have been given arguably does not add 10 much”
• “Defense counsel did make an argument that defendant did not intend to kill the victim, only to shoot her, but that was a weak argument given ... evidence that defendant pointed the gun and fired it at the victim’s head at close range.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Bland
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1983-08-12· cited 49×
• State v. Hodgson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1994-02-11· cited 25×
• State v. Carothers
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-06-17· cited 15×
• State v. Morrison
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-07-13· cited 12×
• State v. Harris
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2006-05-18· cited 12×
• Richard Donald Johanson v. Orville Pung and the Attorney General of the State of Missouri
  Eighth Circuit· 1986-06-26· cited 6×
• State v. Harlin
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2009-08-25· cited 4×
• State v. Johanson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-11-21· cited 2×
• State v. Clayborne
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-04-28· cited 1×
• Johanson v. State
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1987-04-21· cited 1×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Jones
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1978-08-18· cited 180×
• United States v. Martin Blitstein
  Tenth Circuit· 1980-09-17· cited 46×
• State v. Love
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1970-01-05· cited 9×