Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789.

385 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(we review unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error and consider whether there was an error, that was plain, and that affected the defendant’s substantial rights).
State of Minnesota v. Cassandra Lee Lundgren Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jerome O�Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jerome O�Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
tion permits a police officer to seize an object believed to be the fruit or instrumentality of a crime without a warrant if “(1) the police are legitimately in the position from which they view the object; (2) they have a lawful right 4 of access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To conclude that a person intentionally aided another in the commission of a crime, the state must prove “(1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant 11 intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cassandra Lee Lundgren Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that shared stairway of duplex was common area and not curtilage); (concluding that defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the common hallway of apartment building); -38 (Minn. 19
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review a court’s factual findings under our clearly erroneous standard” and its “legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Huy Vu Le Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Huy Vu Le Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An error is plain if it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’”
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Plain error “affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dion Washington-Davis 881 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 524-25 (concluding that error in accomplice-liability instruction is plain in light of Kelley); Kelley, d at 275-77 ().
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jury instructions are reviewed “in their entirety to 6 determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case” and “define the crime charged and explain the elements of that crime to the jury.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court’s is helpful because it involved a similar issue.
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Heather Leann Horst 880 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
Our cases establish that when examining a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review “the district court’s factual findings under our clearly erroneous standard,” and the “legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (emphasis added) ( (“This court affords great deference to an issuing judge’s findings of fact, which we will reverse only if clearly erroneou
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
Consequently, we are faced with a
State of Minnesota v. Heather Leann Horst 880 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 789, 805 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016