Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kallio v. State, 281 N.W.2d 174.

19 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 319 (citing State v. Stapek , ).
State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(upholding trial court’s conclusion that the jury’s request for rereading of nearly half of the total trial testimony was unreasonable); (holding that it was not error for the trial court to refuse to give the jury a transcript which amounted to over one-third of the entire trial testimony).
State v. Gustafson 610 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2000
State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
upheld a retreat requirement for self-defense within the home.
State v. Carothers 585 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
three people entered the defendant’s house unlawfully to “retrieve” some girls who had been attending a party there.
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The trial court’s instructions are consistent with CRIM JIG 7.05
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
we said: It is true that “a party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” But it is also true that “The court need not give the instruction as requested by the party if it determines that the substance of that request is contained in the court’s charge.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Steinhaus 400 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
State v. Edwards 343 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1984
We have considered the issue of whether it was error to refuse to give an accident instruction in a number of cases, including State v. Frost, 342 S.W.2d 317 (Minn., 1983)
State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
We have considered the issue of whether it was error to refuse to give an accident instruction in a number of cases
State v. Nurmi 336 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1983
See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 272-73
State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
(three witnesses — 240 of 800 pages of transcript); (one witness — 115 pages of transcript — nearly half of total trial testimony).
State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
State v. Stapek 315 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1982
State v. Ellert 301 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1981
State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
Similarly, we held that it was not error for the trial court to refuse to give the jury a transcript which amounted to over one-third of the entire trial testimony.
State v. Sperl 287 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1979
We have rejected this contention in a number of cases
State v. Molin 288 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1979
In this respect, -77 (Minn.1979), where, in rejecting a claim by the defendant on appeal that the trial court should have given an instruction that homicide is excusable when committed by accident, we stated as follows: It is true that “a party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support