Supreme Court of Minnesota· 4/18/2012
State v. Ortega
Citations
- 813 N.W.2d 86
- 2012 WL 1317994
- 2012 Minn. LEXIS 150
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that cleaning up and disposing of evidence were efforts to evade detection and supported a finding of premeditation
- holding that premeditation can be shown by examining evidence about the nature of the killing, such as the number of wounds inflicted and the infliction of wounds to vital areas
- holding that evidence of prior threats may establish motive and premeditation
- concluding a prosecutor’s questioning was permissible because it “could have aided [the defendant]’s case”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Stras
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. SilvernailSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2013-05-31· cited 194×
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2017-05-24· cited 89×
- State v. MuntSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2013-05-31· cited 51×
- Loving v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2017-03-22· cited 32×
- State of Iowa v. Mark Gabriel MartinSupreme Court of Iowa· 2016-04-15· cited 30×
- State of Minnesota v. Anthony James CoxSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2016-08-24· cited 19×
- State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael BarshawSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2016-05-25· cited 16×
- State v. VasquezSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2018-06-06· cited 11×
- Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2014-11-19· cited 8×
- State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun DyeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2015-11-30· cited 5×
- State v. SalyersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2014-01-21· cited 5×
- State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore DornCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2016-02-16· cited 3×
- State v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2018-04-02· cited 3×
- State v. GundyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2018-05-29· cited 1×
- Amended June 21, 2016 State of Iowa v. Mark Gabriel MartinSupreme Court of Iowa· 2016-04-15
- State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. SeguraSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2024-01-31
- State of Minnesota v. David Alan WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2024-02-05
- State of Minnesota v. Matthew StarnesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 2024-05-06
- State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James FirkusSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2026-02-25
Cites
31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1981-06-22· cited 6,931×
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court· 1980-05-12· cited 5,571×
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-24· cited 2,777×
- Oregon v. BradshawSupreme Court· 1983-06-23· cited 1,351×
- State v. WebbSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1989-05-26· cited 349×
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1989-03-31· cited 305×
- Bernhardt v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2004-08-05· cited 280×
- State v. AndersenSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2010-06-30· cited 190×
- State v. ScalesSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1994-06-30· cited 174×
- State v. MunsonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-03-18· cited 127×
- State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1988-07-15· cited 95×
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-03-06· cited 89×
- State v. YangSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2009-10-29· cited 85×
- State v. PilcherSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1991-07-26· cited 82×
- State v. PalmerSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2011-09-28· cited 71×
- State v. HollidaySupreme Court of Minnesota· 2008-03-06· cited 66×
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2011-08-24· cited 65×
- State v. McArthurSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2007-04-12· cited 59×
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1998-01-15· cited 58×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-04-20· cited 57×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.