Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650.

151 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An instruction is given in error when it “materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Duane Edwin Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Edwin Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A]n error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 303, 311 (Minn. 2012), for the proposition that “jury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense to the jury.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.8 (Minn. 2007) (noting similarity between harmless-error standard and third prong of plain-error review).
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
-62 (Minn.2007) (remanding for new trial after jury instruction misstated intent element); cf. Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 594 , 106 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fonati McArthur Diggs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The third prong is satisfied “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Ali Moallin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Ali Moallin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A]n error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[E]rror is plain if it is clear or obvious” or “if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“It is well settled that jury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense to the jury.” (emphasis added)
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We review the district court’s jury instructions to determine whether they “fairly and adequately explain the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Under this standard, we may review an unobjected-to error only if there is (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) that affects substantial rights.” -56 (Minn. 2007)
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[J]ury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense to the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Strommen, d at 686 (setting out plain error criteria of an error that is plain and that affected the defendant’s substantial rights and noting that, if the criteria are met, the error will be corrected only if it
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 31.02; n.3 (Minn. 2007) (stating that plain-error standard of review also applies when appealing unobjected-to errors of fundamental law)
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
655 n. 3 (Minn.2007), -12 (Minn.2012).
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
We review the district court’s jury instructions to determine whether they “fairly and adequately explain the law.”
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
generally constitutes a forfeiture of the right to an appeal based on those instructions.”
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012