Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Watkins, 840 N.W.2d 21.

153 citing documents.

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); (con
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska 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. Richard William Reynolds, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the Minnesota Supreme Court considered the meaning of the term “knowingly violates” in the context of the domestic- abuse-no-contact-order (DANCO) statute.
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An error in instructing the jury is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (citation and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Kenton Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]hen a defendant timely objects to a jury instruction, we apply the harmless- error analysis to determine whether the error requires reversal.” n.3 (Minn. 2013)
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Most errors are trial errors, which are reviewed under a prejudicial-impact analysis to determine whether they require reversal and a new trial.” –26 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Having concluded that the prosecutorial misconduct affected Anderson’s substantial rights, we would ordinarily be required to consider the fourth prong of the plain-error test: “whether a new trial is required to ensure the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error in instructing the jury is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (citation and quotation omitted).
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and undermine the structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself.”
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (holding that an instructional error that omits an element of an offense over the objection of a party is a constitutional error that requires reversal, unless the court cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the guilty verdict); (applying plain-error review to an unobjected-to jury instruction).
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Harden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller 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. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he omission of an element of a crime in a jury instruction does not automatically require a new trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
13 Watkins, -29 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In State v. Watkins, the supreme court concluded that even though the defendant’s defense was “questionable,” “the district court’s erroneous instruction prevented the jury from considering [the defendant’s] primary defense in rendering its verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nonetheless, the supreme court recently acknowledged that the “word ‘knowingly’ derives from the word ‘know,’ which means ‘to perceive directly; grasp in mind with clarity or certainty.’” (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 970 (4th ed. 2006)).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
instruction given in error is harmless only if it can be said that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error had no significant impact on the verdict rendered.” (quotation omitted)); (“failure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged is plain error” (quotation and alteration omitted)), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An error in instructing the jury is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014