DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675.

181 citing documents.

  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
    State v. Mahkuk, *602 (“An erroneous jury instruction does not require a new trial if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quoting Mahkuk, d at 683 ) (internal quotations omitted)).
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cross 771 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Cross 771 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Thus, in an aiding and abetting case, the state is required “to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [the defendant knows] that his alleged accomplices [are] going to commit a crime and that [the defendant intends] his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.”
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 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
    in arguing that the district court’s instructions to the jury regarding accomplice liability misstated the Jaw on an essential element, and therefore constituted plain error.
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “A jury instruction given in error is harmless only if it can be said that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error had no significant impact on the verdict rendered.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
    In order to prove aiding and abetting, the State has to prove that the defendant had knowledge of the crime and “intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that cidme.”
  • State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007