State v. Cox

22 Citing cases

  1. State v. Colgrove

    No. A22-0718 (Minn. Oct. 4, 2023)   Cited 10 times

    The circumstantial evidence standard does not allow us to "analyze and parse each fact" in a "piecemeal" fashion to conclude that a hypothesis is reasonable. State v. Cox, 884 N.W.2d 400, 415 (Minn. 2016). And "[w]e do not set aside verdicts based on speculation.

  2. State v. Petersen

    910 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2018)   Cited 43 times
    Explaining that the district did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept Petersen’s guilty plea and noting that a defendant does not have an absolute right to plead guilty

    "We have previously observed that an inference of premeditation may be supported by several categories of evidence, including planning activity, motive, the nature of the killing, and a defendant’s actions following the killing." State v. Cox , 884 N.W.2d 400, 412 (Minn. 2016). We consider each of these categories in turn.

  3. State v. Ulrich

    No. A22-1340 (Minn. Feb. 21, 2024)

    On the issue of premeditation, we have held that "shooting a prone victim" leads to an inference of premeditation, State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 739 (Minn. 2011), "evidence showing that the defendant inflicted wounds to the victim's vital organs may support an inference of premeditation," State v. Cox, 884 N.W.2d 400, 413 (Minn. 2016), "[a] single shot squarely in the back can support a finding of premeditation because it indicates that the shooter took careful aim at the victim," State v. Kendell, 723 N.W.2d 597, 607 (Minn. 2006), "[m]ultiple gunshots are indicative of premeditation," State v. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175, 180 (Minn. 1997), and "[t]he failure to administer any aid to a victim who does not die instantaneously also supports an inference of premeditation," Cox, 884 N.W.2d at 414. On the issue of intent, we have previously held that "pointing a loaded gun at a person and firing it is likely to cause death and leads to an inference of intent."

  4. State v. Segura

    No. A22-0163 (Minn. Jan. 31, 2024)

    Id. (quoting State v. Cox, 884 N.W.2d 400, 412 (Minn. 2016)). We give no deference to the jury's choice between reasonable inferences.

  5. State v. Gilleylen

    993 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. 2023)   Cited 10 times

    "Premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation, nor does it demand that a specific time period elapse for deliberation." State v. Cox , 884 N.W.2d 400, 412 (Minn. 2016). But the State must "establish that there was some appreciable passage of time between a defendant's formation of the intent to kill and the act of killing, and that during this time defendant deliberated about the act." Id.

  6. State v. Hassan

    977 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 2022)   Cited 11 times
    In State v Hassan, 977 N.W.2d 633 (Minn, 2022), the 21-year-old defendant, who had been convicted of first-degree murder, challenged his mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentence as being "cruel" under the cruel or unusual punishment clause.

    Next, we identify the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved when viewed "as a whole and not as discrete and isolated facts." State v. Cox , 884 N.W.2d 400, 412 (Minn. 2016). Although we defer to the jury in determining the circumstances proved, we give "no deference to the fact finder's choice between reasonable inferences."

  7. State v. Balandin

    944 N.W.2d 204 (Minn. 2020)   Cited 39 times
    Explaining that our standard of review requires us to "assume the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with [its] verdict"

    In the absence of direct evidence, premeditation may be inferred from "planning activity, motive, the nature of the killing, and a defendant's actions following the killing." State v. Cox , 884 N.W.2d 400, 412 (Minn. 2016). Here, the evidence the State offered to prove premeditation is circumstantial.

  8. State v. Sardina-Padilla

    No. A21-1642 (Minn. Jun. 12, 2024)

    We have previously held that premeditation "does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation, nor does it demand that a specific time period elapse for deliberation." State v. Cox, 884 N.W.2d 400, 412 (Minn. 2016).

  9. State v. Lehman

    No. A22-0200 (Minn. Mar. 13, 2024)

    The circumstantial evidence standard does not allow us to "analyze and parse each fact" in a "piecemeal" fashion to conclude that a hypothesis is reasonable. State v. Cox, 884 N.W.2d 400, 415 (Minn. 2016). And we will not find an alternative inference reasonable if there is no evidence in the record to support that inference.