Cited by

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

246 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A jury instruction is erroneous if it materially misstates the applicable law.”
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But the instructions must “fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State v. Koppi see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “[t]he actual, subjective beliefs of the officer are not the focus in evaluating D-3 reasonableness”); (noting an improper ulterior motive does not invalidate police action supported
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Probable cause under section 169A.51, subdivision 1(b), exists whenever there 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.” 11 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Aaron Aldrich Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Aaron Aldrich Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In order to convict a person of test refusal, the state must show that a peace officer had “probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical 3 control of a motor vehicle while impaired.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Error in instructing a jury warrants reversal “only if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Koppi, 6 -64 (Minn. 2011) (); -47 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating that an “officer’s subjective good-faith belief” that “criminal activity may be afoot” is not sufficient and the officer “must articulate specific facts” that
State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The ‘honest and 2 strong suspicion standard’ requires more than mere suspicion, but less than the evidence required for a conviction.” (quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michelle MacDonald Shimota v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michelle MacDonald Shimota v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Accordingly, because an officer’s training and experience is the lens through which the fact-finder must evaluate the reasonableness of an officer’s determination of probable cause, probable cause incorporates the individual characteristics and intuitions of the officer.”).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mason bases his argument on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Instructional error warrants reversal “only if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The ‘honest and strong suspicion’ standard requires more than mere suspicion, but less than the evidence required for a conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
which Bjorklund was alleged to have aided.” 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.”
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
-67 (Minn.2011) (explaining that matters not raised in a petition for review are generally deemed forfeited).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Accordingly, “[w]e review a district court’s decision to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A jury instruction is erroneous if it materially misstates the applicable law.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellant argues that the district court committed plain error by giving jury instructions that were not consistent with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s