Legal Opinion

State v. Soukup

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 11, 2003No. C8-02-885PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

Appellant Philip Leighton Soukup challenges his misdemeanor conviction of disorderly conduct, arguing that the trial court erred by ruling that, as a matter of law, self-defense does not apply where the defendant is charged with the offense of disorderly conduct. We hold that a defendant may raise a claim of self-defense to a charge of disorderly conduct where the behavior forming the basis of the offense presents the threat of bodily harm. But because the evidence in the record, as a matter of law, does not support a claim of self-defense, the trial court’s erroneous…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. State v. JuarezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  2. State v. MurphySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  3. State Ex Rel. Foster v. NaftalinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  4. Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  5. State v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. HagenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  2. In Re T.W.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2008
  3. Community Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of LonsdaleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
  4. State v. KilmerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  5. State v. ZaisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API