Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harlin, 771 N.W.2d 46.

18 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Akim Malik Webster Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Akim Malik Webster Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(holding there was sufficient evidence of substantial bodily harm where the victim received a scarring cut to her head that required four staples to close), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State v. Harlin , , rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-52 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew James Preston, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-52 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“An error is plain when it is clear or obvious.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Eliseo Nmn Hernandez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
6, 1985); (indicating that a chipped tooth may qualify as substantial bodily harm), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g ., (“When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is sufficient evidence for a jury to re asonably conclude that [the victim] suffered substantial d isfiguration and therefore substantial bodily harm as the result of appellant’s attack.”), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
For example, review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Harlin , (lack of definition of “intent” was not error because it has a common meaning).
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Although the instruction does not define intent, a specific definition of intent is not necessary because “the word intent has a common meaning, and the definition provided 6 by [the jury instruction guide] does not greatly increase the jury’s understanding of the phrase.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See 8 (“Because appellant did not object to the instructions at trial, we review the unobjected-to instruction under the plain-error standard.”).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To the contrary, the word intent “has a common meaning.” review denied (Minn. Nov.