Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 324 N.W.2d 154.

57 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 154, 160 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Berry Alan Willis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
During closing argument, counse l for appellant agreed that appellant filed the quitclaim deed “so he c ould have some interest in the home.” The supreme court has reversed convictions where the omitted element was contested at trial and evidence was presented on both sides of the issue, see Vance, d at 661, but here, appellant neither contested the issue of whether a quitclaim deed would tran sfer rights, nor did he present evidence indicating that it was not intended to represent a transfer of
State v. Schoenrock 899 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 2017
State v. Schoenrock 899 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 2017
a ease involving payment by a check from an account with insufficient funds.
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
We have said that the defendant must be given the opportunity to rebut such a presumption at trial, but we have never directly addressed the constitutionality of allowing the fact-finder to infer intent from a presumption, see id.
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
to support her argument that the district court’s failure to list intent to defraud as an element is reversible error.
State of Minnesota v. Sunil Vidyadhar Sapatnekar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sunil Vidyadhar Sapatnekar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting State v. McBride, 215 Minn. 123, 131, ); see also Kasner v. Gage, 281 Minn. 149, 151 & n.3, (observing that the court has customarily relied on a provision of the Restatement of Agency that assigns personal liability for the consequences o
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
3(2)-3(3); -60 (Minn.1982) (discussing permissive nature of this inference).
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Amcon contends that this interpretation conflicts with the common-law rule that, “a corporate officer is criminally liable for his own acts, even if done in his official capacity, and he is liable either directly as a principal or as an aider and abettor.”
State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ouellette 740 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(holding that failure to instruct on the element of intent to defraud in prosecution for theft by false representation is an error of fundamental law or controlling principle permitting review despite failure to object to instructions).
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
(holding that when intent is an element of the offense, the court may not withdraw the issue from the jury by instructing that the law raises a presumption of intent from an act).
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
State v. Birk 687 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Birk 687 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that instruction that directs jury to find intent from basic facts without allowing it to weigh defense rebuttal evidence is unconstitutional).
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
a fraud case in which the supreme court held that failure to instruct as to specific intent is an error in fundamental law that both permits review and requires reversal.
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
State v. Orsello 529 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Orsello 529 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
State v. Olson 482 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1992
2213, 2227 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979); (discussing and applying Ulster case).
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“[A] jury instruction on burden of proof concerns a fundamental principle of law, and may be raised on appeal regardless of whether an objection was made at trial.” (), pet.
State v. Smith 448 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Smith 448 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(where intent is element of an offense, trial court may not prejudge the issue by a jury instruction).
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
Greene v. Environmental Development Corp. 415 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Greene v. Environmental Development Corp. 415 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
held that when the intent of an accused is an element of the crime, its existence is a jury issue.
State, City of Tracy v. Neuman 392 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, City of Tracy v. Neuman 392 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Roden 384 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1986
State v. Roden 384 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1986
-60 (Minn.1982); Minn.Stat.
State v. Roden 380 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Roden 380 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Parker, 282 Minn. 343, 358
State v. Belfry 353 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by