Cited by

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

227 citing documents.

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 seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial pro
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones 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)
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
that, because there were no witnesses to the offense, appellant’s prior assaults would be helpful to the jury in determining his intent, which the district court noted as his “attempts to excuse his violence with false claims of self-defense.” But assault-harm is a general-intent crime, which requires only that “the defendant engaged intentionally in specific, prohibited conduct.” -09 (Minn.2012) (quotation omitted).
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. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
10(2) is a general-intent crime.” -10 (Minn.2012).
State v. Klug 839 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Domestic assault is a general-intent crime, requiring only evidence that a defendant “intended to do the physical act, [not] that the defendant meant to violate the law or cause a particular result.” -10 (Minn.2012) (construing substantively identical statutory language).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
In doing so, -309, 312 (Minn.2012), in which we considered the type of intent required for two forms of assault — assault-harm and assault-fear — defined in Minn.Stat.
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[A] specific-intent crime requires an intent to cause a particular result.” (quotation omitted).
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. Greenman 825 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Nelson 823 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 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. Wilson 814 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
ANALYSIS “The de novo standard controls [an appellate court’s] review of statutory interpretation issues.”
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In Allinder , we followed and applied the supreme court’s WL 3007850 (Minn.App.
State v. Allinder 746 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 2008