Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cannady, 727 N.W.2d 403.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The “defendant[] bear[s] the burden of production when asserting an affirmative defense.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
21, 2003); (stating that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt “that the person or persons in the pornographic work are minors”).
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
are construed according to such special meaning or their definition.” Id.; (“ ‘When terms of art or peculiar phrases are used, it must be supposed they are used in the sense as understood by persons familiar and acquainted with such terms.’ ” (quoting Minnesota & P.R.
Minn. 2025
are construed according to such special meaning or their definition.” Id.; (“ ‘When terms of art or peculiar phrases are used, it must be supposed they are used in the sense as understood by persons familiar and acquainted with such terms.’ ” (quoting Minnesota & P.R.
, A22-0103 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that defendants bear the burden of production on affirmative defenses).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: P. D. J., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(applying 17 harmless-error analysis to due -process argument); d 170, 176 (Minn. App. 1997) (declining to reverse TPR for harmless error); see also In re Welfare of Child.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. R. C.-A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Bakken , (discussing provisions of subdivision 4(a) when describing conduct that is criminalized by section 617.247); (same).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
And “[w]hen determining whether the error is harmless, we consider all of the facts and circumstances of the case.”
First Class Valet Services, LLC v. Gleason 892 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
First Class Valet Services, LLC v. Gleason 892 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
By choosing the term of art “indemnify,” we assume the legislature “intends to use the accepted definition of that term of art.”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
or simulated sexual conduct.” Despite the images on appellant’s computer drive being stored in digital form, each digital file was “a visual depiction” and a “computer-generated image.” Each was, therefore, a separate “work.” Minnesota caselaw applying the statute also supports this interpretation of “pornographic work” and “computer-generated image.” (affirming 23 convictions for possession of child pornography on a single computer); (affirming 20 convictions for possession of child pornography
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
18, 2006) (“It was permissible and necessary for the district court to go beyond the ‘on or about’ time of the offense stated in the verdict and look at the specific dates and times of file creation and last access for purposes of determining how many sentences could be imposed.”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Children of D.F. 752 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of D.F. 752 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(refusing to reverse termination of parental rights for harmless error); (applying harmless-error analysis to due-process argument).
State v. Mauer 741 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2007
State v. Mauer 741 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2007
C (severing a constitutionally defective affirmative defense but maintaining the rest of the child pornography statute in light of its stated purpose to penalize possession of child pornography and protect its child victims).