Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Manns, 810 N.W.2d 303.

231 citing documents.

Taquinia Kokela Douglas, Minn. 2023
(internal quotation marks omitted) ( ).
State of Minnesota v. Jerelle Anthony Ellis Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(explaining that, for both specific-intent and general- intent crimes, “a defendant must voluntarily do an act or voluntarily fail to perform an act” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. J. F.-D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Pariss Demond Wright v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Matthew Prescott Beale v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Kershawn Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A general- intent crime occurs when “a statute simply prohibits a person from intentionally engaging in the prohibited conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lawrence Benson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Rarity Shemeire Abdul Lampkin Minn. Ct. App. 2022
–31 (Minn. 2016); –10 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Norbert Pius D’Cruz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When a statu te simply prohibits a person from intentionally engaging in the prohibited conduct, the crime is considered a general- intent crime.”
State of Minnesota v. John Herbert Hodge, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, vs Christian Douglas Baron Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Appellant argues that the state construc tively amended its complaint when the district court permitted the state to amend the first (and most serious) count of the complaint from assault-fear to assault-harm after jury selection, and that the amendment affected appellant’s substantial right to have “tim ely notice and an opportunity to prepare a defense.” In State v. Fleck , -10 (Min n. 2012), the supreme court discussed the difference between assault-fear and assault-harm under Minn. Stat. §60
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he mens rea element of assault-harm, ‘intentional,’ requires only the general intent to do the act that results in bodily harm.” State v. Dorn , (citing State v. Fleck , (holding that assault-harm is a general-intent crime)).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Chad Friese Minn. Ct. App. 2021
is a general-intent crime.” State v. Fleck , -10 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jerome William Darkow Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Two years after this court decided Dalbec, the supreme court considered the ty pe of intent required to prove assault-fear and assault-harm offenses in State v. Fleck
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Ambrose Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Assault is a general -intent crime which “requires only that the defendant engaged intentionally in specific, prohibited conduct.” (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2021
If we cannot tell from the verdict whether the jury relied on erroneous instructions on one of two alternative elements required for a conviction, “ we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper instruction did not have a significant impact on the verdict.” d 303, 311–12 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Quinten Lavel Osgood, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1(1) requires proof that the defendant “cause[d] the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another.” This is a specific intent crime requiring “an intent to cause a particular result.” State v. Fleck , (quotation omitted).
Justin Marcus Rosendahl v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 303, 309 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Lee Wachter Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Milo Calvin Ojohn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1989), State v. Hough , -97 (Minn. 1998); -69 (Minn. App. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Cregg Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Catherine Ann Moore v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Youngstedt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Fleck , (concluding that “assault-harm is a general- intent crime”).
State of Minnesota v. John Okuch Odiel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kristina Greene, et al., Minn. 2020
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Breslan Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Demont White, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10 (2018); see also State v. Fleck , (recognizing two types of assault identified as assault-fear and assault-harm).
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alexander Depiano Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Daniel John Wyatt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Leontaye A. Slaughter-McCaskel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Likewise, “failure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error.” State v. Vance , d 650, 658 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck
Song Sibell v. U. S. Postal Service, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brett Mallberg v. Mark Gustafson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
John Noel McCormick v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A statute is ambiguous only when it has “more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Kastigar Minn. Ct. App. 2020
see also State v. Vance , -55 (Minn. 2007), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fleck
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Zachariah Steven Marczak Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10 (2016); see also State v. Fleck , (categorizing the two types of assault as assault -fear and assault-harm).
State of Minnesota v. Deon Dell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
said no, appellant came back in the water 1
In the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. Minn. 2020
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” d 303, 307 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Alberto Fuentes Cruz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Jovan Hargrove Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 303, 309 -10 (Minn. 2012) (holding that assault -harm is a general -intent crime) .
State of Minnesota v. Jazmyne Amanda-May Shinabarger Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Fleck , -09 (Minn. 2012) .
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Zane David Foley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sokkhan Ka v. Lonvigson’s Service Center, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one rea sonable interpretation.” State v. Fleck
State of Minnesota v. Kristin Ann Altepeter Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We cited to State v. Fleck , -10 (Minn. 2 012) for the proposition that a general-intent crime requires only a showing that the defendant intended to do the physical act, and not that the defendant intended to cause a particular result.
In the Matter of the Lindmark Endowment for Corporate-Business Ethics Fund Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
Malik Jordan Olsen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Olsen’s offense is a general-intent crime that “requires the State to prove that the defendant intended to do the physical act,” but it does not require “proof that the defendant meant to violate the law or cause a particular result.” State v. Fleck , -09 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Wendy Kristine Abbott Minn. Ct. App. 2019