Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799.

174 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Galen Dale Littlewind Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Galen Dale Littlewind Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Hanson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Hanson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko 889 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tetee Saryee d/b/a Zion Home Care, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tetee Saryee d/b/a Zion Home Care, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Whether or not respondent had to prove that someone told the appellant both to leave and not to return “presents a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
19, 2013); (determining that whether the appellant’s conduct met the definition of a drive-by shooting presented a question of statutory interpretation that the supreme court reviews de novo).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council 884 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-31 (Minn. 2010) (concluding in context of plain- error review that “the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit any error when it granted the State’s motion to exclude the evidence on relevance grounds”); (declining to “consider the remaining [elements] of the plain-error test” after concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony”).
State of Minnesota v. Sabrina Beth O'Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sabrina Beth O'Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating in context of sufficiency-of-the- 4 evidence claim that whether defendant’s conduct satisfied statutory definition of crime “presents a question of statutory interpretation that [appellate courts] review de novo”).
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In conducting such a review, [appellate courts] assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
Cody Devereaux Sleiter v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company 868 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2015
Cody Devereaux Sleiter v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company 868 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2015
See id; (embracing the more reasonable of the two interpretations of a statute); (adopting the “better interpretation” of a statute).
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Matthew Drown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Matthew Drown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In applying plain-error review, we will reverse only if (1) there is error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Dewayne Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[T]he best practice in most cases is to limit a witness’s testimony about … fear to redirect examination.”).
State of Minnesota v. William Alan Fellner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Alan Fellner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(declining to “consider the remaining prongs of the plain-error test” after 4 concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony”); –31 (Minn. 2010) (concluding d
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When interpreting a statute, “we give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014