Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Laine, 715 N.W.2d 425.

50 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
41 responding to a jury question, district courts have the discretion “to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Whether verdicts are legally inconsistent is a question of law reviewed de novo.” - 35 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Whether verdicts are legally inconsistent is a question of law reviewed de novo.” -35 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Inconsistent Verdict “Whether verdicts are legally inconsistent is a quest ion of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Laine , -35 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Laine , see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Laine , , 435 (Minn. 2006) ; State v. Leake , , 326 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly state[] the law in language that can be understood by the jury, there is no reversible error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
22, 1987); (treating medical examiner testimony as circumstantial evidence to show causation in a first-degree domestic-abus e murder case).
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1372 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-35 (Minn. 2006); Legal inconsistency occurs only “when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In response to a question from the jury, “[t]he [district] court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tristan Leroy Trice Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tristan Leroy Trice Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“It is well established that the trial judge may, in his discretion, give additional instructions in response to a jury’s question on any point of law.”).
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If the jury asks a question regarding a point of law, the district court “has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“It is well established that the trial judge may, in his discretion, give additional instructions in response to a jury’s question on any point of law.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
Laine v. State 786 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2010
Laine v. State 786 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
“If the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly state[ ] the law in language that can be understood by the jury, there is no reversible error.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
The court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.’ ” (); Minn. R.Crim.
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
(rejecting argument that a similar past pattern of domestic abuse instruction cautioning jurors that a defendant may not be tried or convicted for any offense other than those charged impliedly eliminated the presumption of innocence).
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by