Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269.

216 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Generally, “new rules apply to (1) cases pending on direct appeal at the time of the new rule’s announcement, and (2) cases arising after the rule is announced.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3 materially misstate the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tara Renaye Molnau Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tara Renaye Molnau Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But we are “an error- correcting court, and we apply the best law available to us.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2016
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 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
To satisfy the third prong of the plain-error test, Washington-Davis bears the “heavy burden” of showing there is a “reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction in question had a significant effect on the jury verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court reviews jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether [they] accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Jeffrey Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court reviews jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether [they] accurately state the law in a manner that can be understood by the jury.” 8 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 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
A district court has broad discretion in formulating jury instructions; however, it abuses that discretion “if the jury instructions ‘confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.’ ” -15 (Minn. 2015) ().
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
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. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
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. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[Defendant] acknowledges that he did not object to the instruction on this specific basis, and therefore we review the instruction for plain error.”); (stating that “‘a party [may not] obtain review by raising the same general issue liti
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
While district courts have broad discretion to formulate appropriate jury instructions, a district court abuses its discretion if the *15 jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Perry York Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To conclude that the third element is not met, we must determine that “considerable evidence” in the record establishes the defendant’s guilt, or that, “as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find” that the defendant did not commit the crime
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Vang, d at 261; (reviewing jury instruction for plain error where defendant did not object to instruction on specific basis asserted on appeal); see also Minn. R. Crim.