Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358.

246 citing documents.

Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Jury instructions, reviewed in their entirety, must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Richard Allen Altman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Richard Allen Altman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Whether the arresting officer’s actions were reasonable is an objective inquiry; it does not depend on the officer’s subjective frame of mind at the time of the arrest.” Id.; (“The district court’s jury instruction for refusal to submit to chemical testing was erroneous because the instruction given to the jury articulated an incorrect, subjective standard of probable cause.”).
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A properly objected-to instructional error regarding an element of an offense requires a new trial only if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, –71 (Minn. App. 2010) (holding that instruction that defendant had been given reasonable amount of time to consult with attorney was not directed verdict because consultation time was not jury question in test-refusal prosecution), rev’d on other grounds, 7
State of Minnesota v. Final Exit Network, Inc. 889 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Followed State of Minnesota v. Final Exit Network, Inc. 889 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“A jury instruction is erroneous if it materially misstates the applicable law.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1 (2012); -63 (Minn. 2011).
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
Because she presented this argument for the first time in her brief to this court and failed to raise it in her petition for review, (stating that we generally will not address issues that were not raised in a party’s petition for review).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In general, a district court must instruct a jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.”
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle 881 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle 881 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Lynn Thomas 882 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 358, 361 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Lynn Thomas 882 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
an accomplice-liability instruction and that the absence of such an instruction prevented the jury from fully considering his defense that “he was at the scene but did not intend his actions to aid [J.W.]” A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jodie Kay Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jodie Kay Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Such probable cause exists “whenever there 4 are facts and circumstances known to the officer which would warrant a prudent man in believing that the individual was driving or was operating or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired.” (quotation omitted).
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
a motor vehicle while impaired.” d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The law applicable to Hanson’s argument is as follows: A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.”
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Jury instructions, reviewed in their entirety, must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jack Leonard Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Darrell Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Darrell Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michelle MacDonald Shimota 875 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michelle MacDonald Shimota 875 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester 874 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester 874 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
-66 (Minn. 2011) 14 (rejecting the proposition that harmless-error analysis is about assessing the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial).
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alexander Nathan Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alexander Nathan Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Koppi, 4 (noting that the subjective beliefs of an officer are not the focus in evaluating reasonableness); Paulson v. Comm’r of Pub.