Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cox, 820 N.W.2d 540.

147 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Nyagwoka 894 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Nyagwoka 894 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Palubicki, d at 488 (finding evidence insufficient to create jury question whether witness was accomplice where evidence did not indicate that witness was present at time of murder or participated in any way); (stating that accomplice plays knowing role in crime).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The duty to give the jury instruction “arises from the very real possibility that a jury might discredit all testimony except the accomplice testimony, and thus find the defendant guilty on the accomplice testimony alone.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the jury foreperson submitted a note to the district court that stated: “We have agreed on a verdict on two charges, but have not been able to agree on a third charge.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Lee Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Lee Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 DECISION “We apply our abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s charge to a jury to continue deliberating after the jury has indicated it was deadlocked.”
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Everett Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Everett Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-53 (Minn. 2012) (holding that the district court erred in convicting defendant “[e]ven though the court did not sentence” defendant on that conviction); (reviewing convictions for lesser-included offenses, for which defendant received no sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court’s “duty arises from the very real possibility that a jury might discredit all testimony except the accomplice testimony, and thus find the defendant guilty on the accomplice testimony alone.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This “duty arises from the very real possibility that a jury might discredit all testimony except the accomplice testimony, and thus find the defendant guilty on the accomplice testimony alone.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Lafond Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Lafond Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION “We apply [an] abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s charge to a jury to continue deliberating after the jury has indicated it [is] deadlocked.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In contrast, Minn. Stat. § 634.04 addresses the concern that an accomplice might testify falsely to implicate the defendant and to minimize his own guilt, and then “a jury might discredit all testimony except the accomplice testimony.”
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“District courts must instruct juries on accomplice testimony in any criminal case in which it is reasonable to consider that a witness testifying against the defendant is an accomplice.”
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
(reviewing the jury instructions as a whole to determine if reversible error occurred); Ihle, d at 916 .
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012