State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw, 879 N.W.2d 356

In October 2012 Marcus Barshaw, who had brought an SKS rifle and a .380 handgun to Rockville, confronted Jeffery Schutz after a dispute at a motor home; Barshaw had the weapons in the vehicle and moved the rifle into the motor home prior to the confrontation.
Barshaw burst from the motor home with the rifle, chased Schutz ~80–100 feet despite orders and pleas to stop, and fired nine shots in two bursts; six or seven struck Schutz, several hitting vital organs.
After the shooting Barshaw fled, hid in an apartment laundry room, pointed a handgun at a resident to “scare him,” and attempted to leave while police had the building surrounded.
Officers in tactical vests ordered Barshaw to disarm; as he opened a rear door Deputy Meemken saw Barshaw raise a handgun toward him (4–5 o’clock position) and shot him.
Barshaw waived a jury trial; the district court convicted him of first‑degree premeditated murder and first‑degree assault of a peace officer and sentenced him to life without release (plus a consecutive term for the assault).
On appeal Barshaw argued the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation for murder and intent to cause fear for the assault charge; the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation for first‑degree murder	The State: evidence of planning (bringing and positioning weapons, pursuing Schutz), and nature of killing (multiple shots, vital-area wounds, pause between volleys) supports premeditation	Barshaw: killing was an impulsive "snap response" to Schutz’s remark, not premeditated	Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (planning + nature of killing) supports premeditation; alternative snap‑response hypothesis unreasonable
Sufficiency of evidence of intent to cause fear for first‑degree assault of a peace officer	The State: raising a loaded handgun toward Deputy Meemken after threatening a resident, ignoring repeated police commands, and attempting to escape after a murder supports intent to cause fear of imminent bodily harm	Barshaw: court erred in finding he raised the handgun toward Meemken and, even if he did, he lacked intent to cause fear (only trying to open door)	Court: Affirmed — factual finding that he raised the handgun was supported; totality of circumstances permits inference he intended to cause Meemken fear of immediate bodily harm

State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 2011) (premeditation requires some appreciable time to consider or prepare)
State v. Fox, 868 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2015) (premeditation usually proven circumstantially and inferred from totality of circumstances)
State v. Anderson, 789 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. 2010) (two‑step test for circumstantial‑evidence sufficiency: identify circumstances proved, then examine reasonable inferences)
State v. McAllister, 862 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2015) (apply circumstantial‑evidence standard and defer to fact‑finder’s acceptance of proved circumstances)
State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011) (standard for reviewing factual findings: not clearly erroneous if reasonably supported by the record)