Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. White, 684 N.W.2d 500.

65 citing documents.

State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
Step one focuses on “(1) whether one or more members of a racial group have been peremptorily challenged and (2) whether the circumstances of the case raise an inference that the challenge was based on race.”
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
See Earl, d at 722 ; (holding that jury instructions virtually identical to the ones used in this case, when read as a whole, did not confuse or mislead the jury or materially misstate the law); -10 (Minn.1985) (holding that the “reasonable foreseeability” test for accomplice liability
White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
3 “A defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given to the jury generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.” see also Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
However, we have discretion to examine instructions that were not objected to at trial “if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” Id.
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005