Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Transfer to Disability Status of Raisanen, 789 N.W.2d 227.

74 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(−42 (Minn. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted in original)).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
–42 (Minn. 2010) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If an instruction “correctly states the 7 law in language that can be understood by the jury, there is no reversible error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If a criminal suspect faces custodial interrogation, the suspect must be informed that the suspect has a right to remain silent and has a right to speak with an attorney.” (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467–73, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1624–27 (1966)).
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the state.’ ” -42 (Minn. 2010) ().
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
Id.; d 227, 234-35 (Minn. 2010).
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
Four years later, in State v. Anderson, we addressed another argument similar to Moore’s. -41 (Minn.2010).
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
-42 (Minn.2010) (citations omitted) (internal *810 quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
-42 (Minn.2010) () (internal citations omitted).
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
We have concluded that motive evidence is unnecessary to a finding of premeditation, but “it can help strengthen a finding that the defendant deliberated about the killing.”
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 830 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2013
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
“A district court errs when its instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law,” but if the instructions read as a whole “correctly state[ ] the law in language that can be understood by the jury, there is no reversible error.” Vang, d at 581 .
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
First, we “identify the circumstances proved, giving deference ‘to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflict *599 ed with the circumstances proved by the State.’ ” -42 (Minn.2010) (quoting Andersen, d at 329 ).
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
-42 (Minn.2010) (-30 (Minn.2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Ndikum 815 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
-42 (Minn.2010) (-30 (Minn.2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
-42 (Minn.2010) () (internal citations omitted).