Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. State, 282 N.W.2d 878.

52 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Sara Schmeichel Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Sara Schmeichel Minn. 2026
“[T]he elements of the crime should be explained, but detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (holding that the district court did not err when it did not provide a definition of “theft” or “steal” in the jury instructions for burglary).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (concluding that the district court’s failure to define “great bodily harm” in the jury instructions for a criminal-sexual-conduct charge was not erroneous).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[T]he elements of the crime should be explained, but detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do 14 not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (footnote omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Marsean Juan Crockett, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
For example, the supreme court stated that a challenged instruction was not erroneous because it was "sufficient to convey the essentials of the 5 element to the jury" and was consistent with a statutory definition.
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Peterson v. State , , 881 (Minn. 1979).
A18-1246 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he elements of the crime should be explained, but detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.”
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Peterson v. State , , 881 (Minn. 1979) ; see also State v. Robinson , , 799-800 (Minn. App. 2005) (declining to instruct a jury on the definition of intent was not plainly erroneous).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court may explain the elements of the crime, “but detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to specula te over the meaning of the elements.” ; see also Robinson, d at 799 -800 (declining to instruct a jury on the definition of intent was not plainly erroneous).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
if the in structions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” Peterson v. 13 State
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But, “detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
It is well established that “detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the supreme court stated that “the elements of the crime should be explained, but detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
16 not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.”
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(“[D]etailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.”).
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
881 *243 (Minn.1979) (holding no error of fundamental law or controlling principle where the instruction correctly states the elements of a charge).
State v. Dolbeare 511 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1994
State v. Dolbeare 511 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1994
State v. Rachuy 495 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Rachuy 495 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Hines 458 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hines 458 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Clobes 417 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Clobes 417 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Erdman 383 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Erdman 383 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
18(3), and Rule 31.02, Minn.R.Crim.P.
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. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
State v. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
Cases of this court in which the defendant has made an issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence that the victim was in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm include:
Peterson v. State 322 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1982
Peterson v. State 322 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1982
State v. Morrison 310 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1981
State v. Morrison 310 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1981
Cases decided under subsection (c)
State v. Zernechel 304 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1981
State v. Zernechel 304 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1981