State v. Marchand

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the victim’s reaction is circumstantial evidence relevant to the element of intent and that 8 appellant had intended for the victim to be afraid of touching his car again
• stating that to reverse a conviction we “must find that the evidence indicates [the defendant] acted not out of an intent to terrorize but rather in the midst of transitory anger”
• affirming conviction of angry owner of towed car who yelled at the complainant and a companion, “I know where you live and I know what kind of vehicles you have, and if I ever see you . . . I’ll run your asses right off the road”
• “[T]o warrant reversal based on appellant’s argument, this court must [determine] that the evidence indicates he acted not out of an intent to terrorize but rather in the midst of transitory anger.”
• “[T]here is evidence that [defendant] acted with intent and not merely out of transitory anger. Viewed in the light most favorable to support the jury’s finding of guilt, we conclude that this evidence of intent is sufficient to permit the jury to reach that conclusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Jones
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-01-30· cited 8×
• State v. Fuller
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2001-11-20· cited 6×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Schweppe
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1975-12-26· cited 97×
• State v. Ellingson
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1969-04-11· cited 45×
• State v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1985-09-17· cited 12×
• State v. Taylor
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1978-03-17· cited 7×