Minnesota Supreme Court, 1973

State v. Turner

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 12, 1973 · Knutson, Murphy, Otis, Schultz

295 Minn. 539; 203 N.W.2d 539; 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1329 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones , State Public Defender, and James A. Dueholm , for appellant. Warren Spannaus , Attorney General, George M. Scott , County Attorney, and Henry W. McCarr, Jr. , and David G. Roston , Assistant County Attorneys, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1975, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Turner v. State (Minn. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Defendant contends on this direct appeal from judgment of conviction for second-degree murder, Minn. St. 609.19, that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict and that, if anything, he was guilty only of “heat of passion” first-degree manslaughter, Minn. St. 609.20(1).

Defendant and two friends amused themselves one summer evening by driving up and down Lake Street in Minneapolis squirting other motorists with a water pistol. One motorist in particular became offended by this and communicated his irritation to defendant, but defendant and his friends sped away before any serious confrontation could develop. After arming himself with a handgun, defendant along with his friends returned to Lake Street, where the same motorist spotted them and gave chase, finally catching them when traffic forced them to stop their car. The victim, unarmed, approached defendant and grabbed him through the window. Defendant responded by firing two shots, one striking and killing the victim.

On this evidence the jury could reasonably conclude that the state had met its burden of proving that defendant acted without justification and not in self-defense. Further, on this evidence we cannot conclude that, as a matter of law, defendant was guilty of “heat of passion” manslaughter and not second-degree murder.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.