Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 844 N.W.2d 519.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In this situation, it would be inappropriate to “add[] words to a statute that the Legislature omitted.” (concluding that section 609.582, subdivision 1(b), does not require evidence of 15 knowledge).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“There is nothing in the language defining first-degree burglary that imposes a mens rea requirement of any kind with respect to the element of possession.”).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 49; -25 (Minn. 2014) (concluding that crime of burglary with dangerous 7 weapon is not strict-liability offense and does not require knowledge of gun possession because burglary already includes mens rea requirement).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, - 525 (Minn. 2014) (“words and phrases of the statute must be understood in light of their context” and interpreting mens rea requirement in first -degree burglary statute).
Save Lake Calhoun, Minn. 2020
In determining a statute’s plain meaning, “words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018)
State v. Rogers 925 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
State v. Rogers 925 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (2018) ; 2 see also State v. Garcia-Gutierrez , , 521 (Minn. 2014).
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
Wenthe , d at 303 (quoting State v. Garcia-Gutierrez , , 523 (Minn. 2014) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- 25 (Minn. 2014) (noting that the court has read an “intent to possess an illegal drug” mens rea requirement into controlled-substance laws).
A16-2034 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We are to “construe words and phrases according to rules of grammar and according to their most natural and obvious usage unless it would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of t he legislature.” (quoting Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Absurdity will not override the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute “except in an exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ‘utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 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
522 n. 4 (Minn.2014) (declining to address an issue because it was not raised in the State’s petition for review); (explaining that we generally do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
-25 (Minn.2014), concluding that the crime of burglary with a dangerous weapon is not a strict liability offense and does not require knowledge of gun possession because the underlying offense — burglary—already carries a mens rea requirement.
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Followed Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he rules of statutory interpretation forbid us from adding words to a statute that the Legislature omitted.”