Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d 588.

127 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Rutherford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Rutherford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quoting State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 421, (“Neither the prosecution nor the defense can limit the submission of such lesser degrees as the trial court determines should be submitted.”)).
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
It is well-established that, when “the evidence warrants a lesser-included offense instruction, the trial court must give it.” (Dahlin I).
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a district court may provide a lesser-included-offense instruction to the jury in its discretion even if the defendant has waived that instruction).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court “must give a lesser-included offense instruction when (1) the lesser offense is included in the charged offense; (2) the evidence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the offense charged; and (3) the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdisaid Ahmed Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(requiring a district court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting a lesser-included-offense instruction).
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[B]oth credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence are tasks reserved to the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Helps Minn. Ct. App. 2015
( abrogated in part on other grounds, -96 (Minn. 2005)).
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Appellant concedes that he did not request an instruction on second-degree culpable-negligence manslaughter, and State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 422 , -26 (1975), the district court must sua sponte give a lesser-included-offense instruction when the evidence provides a rational basis (1) for acquitting the defendant of the greater offense, and (2) convicting of the lesser-included offe
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Our sys *688 tem of justice assumes that juries that are properly instructed will weigh the evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, and reach the appropriate verdict.”
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
State v. Hull 788 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2010
Such instructions are required where (1) the offense is a lesser-included offense of the offense charged, (2) “the evidence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the offense charged,” and (3) “the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense.”
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
(noting that a part of jury deliberations is the jury evaluating whether a lesser-included crime is more appropriate than the greater crime).
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
Chambers v. State 769 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2009
Chambers v. State 769 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2009
Chambers argues that Knaffla does not bar his claim because we articulated a -96 (Minn.2005), and that the Dahlin test, if applied retroactively to this claim, would entitle Chambers to a new trial.
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See, ( and citing O’Meara and Teague for proposition that “if a defendant’s conviction was already final at the time the new rule of law was announced, the defendant ordinarily may not take advantage of the new rule because it will not be retroactive”); -65 (Minn.2004)
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Van Keuren 759 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2008