DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

125 citing documents.

  • State v. Johnson 775 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (describing ejusdem generis canon of construction in which meaning of general words is restricted by association with more particular words); see also Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
    Expert opinion testimony is not helpful if “the subject of the testimony is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not *579 add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within their experience.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
    Expert opinion testimony is not helpful if “the subject of the testimony is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within their experience.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
    (expert medical witness calling victim’s injury a “serious bodily injury” was improper because it told the jury what result to reach in whether the victim’s injury constituted “great bodily harm”).
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    6,1985); (explaining that a jury must determine whether the loss of a tooth constitutes great bodily harm).
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    By using these more specific terms — which denote formulation for a particular purpose — the legislature limited the broader terms in the definition of “mixture.” -39 (Minn.2005) (concluding that specific terms in statute restricted meaning of general term).
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
    Nevertheless, district courts have “considerable latitude in selecting language for jury instructions”; a particular instruction is therefore error only “if it materially misstates the law.”
  • State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
    “An instruction is error if it materially misstates the law.”
  • State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • Harrison Ex Rel. Harrison v. Harrison 733 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006