Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jorgenson, 758 N.W.2d 316.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-22 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To support his argument that he did not in tend to follow through on his threat and thus lacked the requisite intent, rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., State v. Jorgenson , -25 (Minn. App. 2008) (reversing for plain error when a jury instruction did not define a predicate “crime of violence” that was a necessary element of the offense of terroristic threats), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Elwin Louis Klimek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellant attempts to meet this burden and obtain a new trial by relying on three Minnesota cases, review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jorgeson , , 325 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Ravy Nov v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ravy Nov v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1(d) (2012); d 316, 323 (Minn. App. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We have stated that “[t]o convict a defendant on a charge of felony terroristic threats, a jury must find that the defendant threatened a specific predicate crime of violence” and that “the jury must be informed of the elements of that essential predicate offense.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Whitley, d at 694, and “[t]his is especially true when resolution of the matter depends mainly on conflicting testimony because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [factfinder],”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-34 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
326 *346 (Minn.App.2008) (reversing conviction and remanding for new trial based on erroneous jury instruction even though the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction).
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(reversing conviction and remanding for new trial based on erroneous jury instruction even though the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by