Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Crace, 289 N.W.2d 54.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
It is equally well settled, however, that the victim’ s negligence is relevant on the questions of whether the defendant was negligent, and, if so, whether that negligence was the p roximate cause of the victim’ s injury.” -60 (Minn. 1979).
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ated that the terms carelessness and negligence as used in the criminal context are synonymous and may be defined as “[n]ot taking ordinary or proper care” or “a lack of ordinary care; that is, lack of such care as a man of ordinary care would exercise under the particular circumstances of the case.” 244 Minn. 296, 299, (quotations omitted); -59 (Minn. 1979) (approving of a jury instruction defining negligence as “the failure to use that degree of care which an ordinary prudent or careful person
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(hojding that even if victim was negligent in dressing in black and drinking while hunting, it would not relieve defendant from liability); State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 519-20 , (finding that even if victim’s husband was negligent in.creating spark in gas-filled room, it did
State v. Landherr 542 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Landherr 542 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Dunagan 521 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1994
State v. Dunagan 521 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1994
(rejecting argument that trial court erred in not instructing the jury that the defendant’s contributory negligence, if any, would be a defense to a charge of second-degree manslaughter), (rejecting argument that trial court erred in failing to give
In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lund 474 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lund 474 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
State v. Grover 437 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 1989
we held that “[t]he requirements of due process are satisfied by specifying standards of conduct in terms that have acquired meaning involving reasonably definite standards either according to the common law or by long and general usage” and that “[njegligence as a test of criminal responsibility” constitutes “a sufficiently definite standard of criminal responsibility.” State v. Hayes, 244 Minn. 296
State v. Hedstrom 426 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hedstrom 426 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Iten 401 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Iten 401 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[I]t is well settled that the contributory negligence of the victim is never a defense to a criminal prosecution.”
State v. Backus 358 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Backus 358 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“[I]t is desirable for the court to explain the elements of the offenses rather than simply reading statutes.”
State v. Heinzer 347 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Heinzer 347 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The crime charged should be defined in the jury instructions, and its elements should be explained to the jury.
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Munnell 344 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In State v. Hayes, 244 Minn. 296 , the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of using an ordinary negligence standard in criminal statutes.
State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982
State v. Williams 324 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1982