DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carlson, 268 N.W.2d 553.

82 citing documents.

  • State v. Larson 358 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
    In State v. White, we dealt with an identical contention as follows: As to defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that there was no question but that the building entered was a “dwelling,” we need say only that — while trial courts should be “extremely reluctant” to give such instructions, — the instruction clearly was not prejudicial because the building obviously was a dwelling and defendant never contended otherwise.
  • State v. Perkins 353 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 353 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jahnke 353 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    While admission of evidence regarding the sexual problems of Freda Jahnke and her husband may have had the potential to cause the jury to deal with the issue on an ¿motional level beyond any probative value, no timely objection was made to this question.
  • State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Heinzer 347 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Heinzer 347 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1983
    We have indicated that in criminal cases a defendant “is entitled to have all the elements of the offense with which he is charged submitted even if the evidence relating to these elements is uncontradicted.”
  • State v. Wick 331 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Wick 331 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Southern 304 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1981
  • State v. White 300 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1980
  • State v. White 300 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1980
    (a) As to defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that there was no question but that the building entered was a “dwelling,” we need say only that-while trial courts should be “extremely reluctant” to give such instructions, -the instruction clearly was not prejudicial because the building obviously was a dwelling and defendant never contended otherwise.
  • State v. Helterbridle 301 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Helterbridle 301 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1980
    (trial court should be extremely reluctant to remove issues concerning the sufficiency of evidence of certain elements from the jury but a defendant can forfeit his right to complain on appeal, as when a defendant has admitted some elements to the jury and the trial court then states that those matters hav
  • State v. Anderson 292 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Anderson 292 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1980
    Defendant argues that the prosecutor’s comments were improper in the same manner as the comments of the prosecutor on the defendant’s where we reversed a conviction in part because of improper allusion by the prosecutor to the fact that the defendant there was wearing a jacket with a motorcycle club insignia on it.
  • State v. Crisler 285 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Crisler 285 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1979
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
  • Peterson v. State 282 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1979
    State v. Thurston, 299 Minn. 30, 35
  • LaMere v. State 278 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
  • Rosillo v. State 278 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 1979
  • Rosillo v. State 278 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 1979
  • LaMere v. State 278 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
    : “The general rule is that a jury has a power of lenity and can bring in a not guilty verdict in the teeth of the facts.