Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733.

125 citing documents.

John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(Moore II, unrelated to Moore I).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Jury instructions are viewed as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Scotty William Polchow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scotty William Polchow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he phrase ‘other serious bodily harm’ should be taken in the context of the other three alternative definitions.”
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(Moore II, unrelated to Moore I).
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Darrell Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Darrell Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6, 1985), and the supreme court’s provide the logical framework for why the district court erred in giving its instructions.
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emem Ufot Udoh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An expert may even provide “opinion testimony on ultimate issues if such testimony is helpful to the factfinder.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Paul Wateski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that testimony regarding the ultimate issue in a case is not always objectionable); (“Special care must be taken by the trial judge to ensure that the defendant’s presumption of innocence does not get lost in the flurry of
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Other serious bodily harm” is not defined by statute, and it “should be taken in the context of the other three alternative definitions.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
“Jury instructions are viewed as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain the law.”
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Anthony Douglas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Anthony Douglas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 733, 736 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ellis Bardney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In both cases cited by Bardney, the issue was the admission of opinion testimony by an expert witness.
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An instruction is error if it materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An instruction is error if it materially misstates the law.”
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
we held that the harmless-error standard does not apply to an erroneous omission of an element of the charged offense from a jury instruction, thereby implicitly rejecting the reasoning of Neder .
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(applying ejusdem generis to statutory interpretation of “great bodily harm”).
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
While some of our case law indicates that a district court’s failure to instruct a jury on an element of an offense is always prejudicial, -38 (Minn.2005), other case law from our court indicates that failure to instruct on an element may be harmless under certain circumstances, State v. Spencer, 298 Minn. 456, 463-64
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, d at 253 (holding that the judge’s independent investigation into a factual assertion and revelation of the results of that investigation to counsel deprived defendant of his right to an impartial judge and finder of fact and thus constituted’ structural error); -38 (Minn.2005) (holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error).
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-38 (Minn.2005) (holding that district court’s instruction that the loss of a tooth is a permanent loss of the function of a bodily member improperly infringed on defendant’s right to have jury determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt on every element of charged offense).
State v. Johnson 775 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 2009