Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gunderson, 812 N.W.2d 156.

81 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[E]rror affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable 12 likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury's verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Richard William Reynolds, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Prior to the amendment, we made clear that to “knowingly” violate an HRO in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Richard William Reynolds, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
a precursor to Watkins, we considered the meaning of the term “knowingly violates” in the context of the harassment-restraining-order (HRO) statute.
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-61 (Minn. App. 2012), this court interpreted the term “knowingly” in the violation-of-a-harassment- restraining-order statute to mean the individual was “aware” that his conduct was “prohibited.” And in interpreting “knowingly” in the domestic-abuse no-contact-order statute, our supreme court held that a pers
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We once again remind the district court that the “CRIMJIGs are not precedential or binding” and “[w]hen the plain language of the statute conflicts with the CRIMJIG, the district court is expected to depart from the CRIMJIG and properly instruct the jury regarding the elements of the crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The “CRIMJIGs are not precedential or binding” and “[w]hen the plain language of the statute conflicts with the CRIMJIG, the district court is expected to depart from the CRIMJIG and properly instruct the jury regarding the elements of the crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Davis, d at 176; (stating that a jury instruction “is not necessarily insulated from being plain error because it follows the applicable CRIMJIG” and that, if a CRIMJIG conflicts with the applicable law, “the district court is expected to depart from the CRIMJIG and properly instruct the jury”).
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But in State v. Gunderson, this court interpreted “knowingly” as used in the violation-of-a-harassment-restraining-order statute and held that a person is guilty of violating that statute if he is “aware” that his conduct is “prohibited.” -61 (Minn. App. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And“[a]n instruction is not necessarily insulated from being plain error because it follows the applicable CRIMJIG.”
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because jury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense, “failure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged” can constitute plain error, (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lori Elaine Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lori Elaine Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
6(d); (holding that “person acts knowingly” if she “is aware that it is practically 6 certain that [her] conduct will cause such a result”), superseded by statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Dean James Roehler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dean James Roehler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “‘[k]nowingly’ is not defined in Minnesota’s criminal code.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]t is the jury’s duty to weigh conflicting evidence and to make credibility determinations.”
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(discussing felony-level violation of harassment restraining order).