Cited by

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

385 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Under the plain-error test, appellant must show (1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected appellant’s “substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(explaining that “element of ‘intentionally aiding’ embodies two important and necessary 5 principles: (1) that the defendant ‘knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime,’ and (2) that the defendant ‘intended his presence or acti
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber 877 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2016
According to Huber, the accomplice-liability jury instructions failed to explain the meaning of "intentionally aiding," -08 (Minn. 2012), and failed to use the word "intentionally" in describing aiding and abetting as an element of the crime.
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Martin Odette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Martin Odette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(2) he intended his presence and actions to further the commission of that crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Prosecutorial misconduct “[Appellate courts] review prosecutorial misconduct to determine whether the conduct, in light of the whole trial, impaired the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2013) (-10 & n.14 (Minn. 2012) (applying plain-error analysis to determine whether a failure to instruct the jury on the intent element of accomplice liability affected the defendant’s substantial rights); (concluding that plain-error analysis is applicable to unobject
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Susan Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Susan Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Our caselaw requires that to convict, the state must prove “(1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review the 4 district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
We reiterated those same “important and necessary principles” *16 -06 (Minn.2012).
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota,Respondent v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Under the plain- error test, appellant must show (1) error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the appellant’s “substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The phrase “intentionally aids” includes “two important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota,Respondent v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts “review the jury instructions in their entirety to determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]e review the jury instructions in their entirety to determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To conclude that one 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 intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotations omitted).1 Foreknowledge that a crime will be committed is a necessary part of the element of intentionally aiding another in committing a crime.
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he element of ‘intentionally aiding’ embodies two important and necessary principles: (1) that the defendant knew that his alleged 7 accomplices were going to commit a crime, and (2) that the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that when a defendant fails to object to jury instructions during trial, this court reviews the issue on appeal for plain error).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore 863 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Shayia Lee, (A14-1503), State of Minnesota v. Tasheanna Yvonne Moore, (A14-1504). Minn. Ct. App. 2015