Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dalbec, 789 N.W.2d 508.

46 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
states that acting with intent to cause fear and intentionally inflicting bodily harm are alternative means by which an assault may be committed and upheld jury instructions combining these alternative means.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
–13 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Thus, a jury must reach a unanimous verdict on all elements of the crime but need not agree on the underlying facts.” 2 rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Thus, a jury must reach a unanimous verdict on all elements of the crime but need not agree on the underlying facts.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 358; see State v. Dalbec , (discussing Stempf), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See id.; rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Raymont Michael Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymont Michael Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
However, “different factual courses of conduct or states of mind that are offered to prove an element of a crime must show equivalent blameworthiness or culpability.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
offered to prove an element of a crime.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
offered to prove an element of a crime.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Because the very act of possession [is] an element of the crime, rather than just a means of proving the element of possession, the jury [is] required to reach a unanimous verdict on which act constituted the offense.” d 508, 512 (Minn. App. 2010) (citing Stempf, d at 357), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When the state offers different means for proving a crime, the jury need not agree on the specific means, “[b]ut different factual courses of conduct or states of mind that are offered to prove an element of a crime must show equivalent blameworthiness or culpability.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Explained State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
4 The first issue implicates the validity of our holding in State v. Dalbec , in which we explained that the domestic -assault statute defines “alternative means by which an assault may be committed.” -13 (Minn. App. 2010) (emphasis ad ded), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-13 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When the state offers different means for proving a crime, the jury need not agree on the specific means, “ [b]ut different factual courses of conduct or states of mind that are offered to prove an element of a crime must show eq uivalent blameworthiness or culpability.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Further, “the jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element, such as which of several possible means the defendant used to commit an element of the crime.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-11 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-13 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“A jury cannot convict a defendant unles s it unanimously finds that the government has proved each element of the charged offe nse.”).
State v. Lagred 923 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lagred 923 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
510-11 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.
, A17-1672 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In addition, “the jury nee d not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element, [such as] which of several possible means the defendant used to commit an element of the crime.” State v. Dalbec , (M inn.
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
7 We also recognize that our prior holding in State v. Dalbec , , 512-13 (Minn. 2010), that assault-fear and assault-harm are "alternative means by which an assault may be committed" has been called into question by the supreme court's holding in *812 State v. Fleck , , 312 (Minn. 2012), that assault-harm is a general-intent crime and assault-fear is a specific-inte
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-13 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., Infante, d at 357 (holding appellant’s conduct was part of a single behavioral incident because it occurred over a short period of time at one location and involved a single victim); d 508, 512 (Minn. App. 2010) (holding appellant’s conduct was part of a single behavioral incident because it occurred at one location and involved one victim), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 358; (discussing Stempf), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 358; (discussing Stempf), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We addressed a review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Ali Moallin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Ali Moallin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Different state-of-mind requirements may be offered to prove an element so long as they show “equivalent blameworthiness or culpability.” d 508, 511 (Minn. App. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-13 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(“A jury cannot convict a defendant unless it unanimously finds that the government has proved each element of the charged offense.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.