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. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650.

151 citing documents.

  • State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    “[FJail-ure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.”
  • State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
    -63 (Minn.2007) (remanding "to the district court for adjudication and sentencing on the terror-istic threat conviction or, if the state so chooses, a new trial on the third-degree assault charge.” (footnote omitted))
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    A party’s “failure to object [to the jury instructions at trial] will not preclude appellate review if the instructions constitute plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.”
  • State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
    2310 , 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995)
  • Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
  • Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Cogger 802 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Cogger 802 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    “Specific intent means that the defendant acted with the intent to produce a specific result, whereas general intent means only that the defendant intentionally engaged in prohibited conduct.”
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
    P. 31.02; , 655 n. 3 (Minn.2007).
  • State v. Fleck 797 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Fleck 797 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Specific intent requires proof that the defendant acted “with the intent to produce a specific result.”
  • State v. Dalbec 789 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Dalbec 789 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
  • State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
    To prevail on the third prong of the plain-error test, Barrientos-Quintana “bears the heavy burden of showing” prejudice, which means “there is a reasonable likelihood that [the error] had a significant effect on the jury verdict.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    P. 31.02; (stating that “failure to object [to jury instructions] will not preclude appellate review if instructions constitute plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law”).
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    at 428 ; ("Specific intent means that the defendant acted with the intent to produce a specific result, whereas general intent means only that the defendant intentionally engaged in prohibited conduct.” (Emphasis omitted.)).
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
    District courts are given “considerable latitude in choosing jury instructions.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “[E]rror affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    -57 (Minn.2007) (holding that it was error to fail to give “the underlying definition of assault” in defining third-degree assault.)
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008