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. Tibbetts, 281 N.W.2d 499.

26 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    see, -46 (Minn. 1986) (conducting a substantive-due-process analysis of a statute involving intrusion on personal liberty); d 499, 501 (Minn. 1979) (discussing the high stakes of loss of liberty upon criminal conviction).
  • State v. Peterson 673 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Peterson 673 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 2004
    1068 ; (ordering a new trial when the jury instructions obscured and diluted the reasonable doubt standard).
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (holding the defendant, charged with criminal sexual conduct, was denied due process by the trial court’s instruction that the jury need only find that his actions could reasonably be construed for the purpose of satisfying his sexual impulses) with 1984 Minn. Laws ch. 525, § 3 (deleting “if the acts
  • State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    relied upon by appellant, that directed the jury that a reasonable construction that the touching was for sexual satisfaction was sufficient to convict, the trial court’s instructions in this case, read as a whole, properly directed the jury to search for
  • Tibbetts v. Crossroads, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Tibbetts v. Crossroads, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Kelly gave them the citation to Tibbetts’ appeal, in which the supreme court reversed because the trial court improperly instructed the jury.
  • Adesiji v. State 384 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Adesiji v. State 384 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Graham 366 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Graham 366 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Peirce 364 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Peirce 364 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
    Defendant’s is misplaced.
  • Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    11 (1980), which states, “ ‘Sexual contact’ includes any of the following acts, if the acts can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of satisfying the actor’s sexual or aggressive impulses.” the Minnesota Supreme Court held that inclusion of Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Bicknese 285 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Bicknese 285 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1979
    The district court, certified the issue as important and doubtful.
  • State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
    Similarly, contrary to defendant’s assertions, does not require reversal of defendant’s conviction.