Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gulbertson v. State, 843 N.W.2d 240.

101 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Lee Treptow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Lee Treptow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Chris Marquis McMorris, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
(concluding that there was sufficient evidence to show a past pattern of domestic abuse where the State introduced evidence that the defendant threatened, pushed, and injured a victim but was not convicted of any crimes based on these acts).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Accordingly, “it was not unreasonable for counsel to fail to object to proper jury instructions.” n.7 (Minn. 2014).
Michael Walton Hinton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael Walton Hinton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Minn. 2023
We “will not reverse where jury instructions overall fairly and correctly state the applicable law.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Charles Earl Strother, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
20 For a defendant to be convicted of first -degree domestic abuse murder, the State must prove “not only that the defendant caused the death of the victim while committing domestic abuse, but also that domestic abuse had occurred previously to the exten t that it was a ‘past pattern.’ ”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
District courts have “considerable latitude” in selecting the exact language of jury instructions and we review the instructions as a whole to determine if they “fairly and adequately explain the law.” Gulbertson v. State , (citations omitted).
Ronnie Bila Shaka, Petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Hunter Lee Briscoe, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ernesto Reyes-Alcazar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
2(b)(4)-(5) (2018) ; see Gulbertson v. State , , 243, 245 n.6 (Minn. 2014) (explaining that the defendant and the victim "were involved in a romantic relationship for several years," lived together, and thus were "family or household members" under the statute); State v. Clark , , 415, 418 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that the defendant and the victim "
Gideon Charles Arrington, II, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Berry Alan Willis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gulbertson v. State , State v. Kelley
A16-1196 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Schoenrock 899 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 2017
State v. Schoenrock 899 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court assumes that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Kinte Payton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Kinte Payton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(recognizing that a court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence assumes that the fact-finder believed the state’s witnesses).
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
(“A plain error is one that is clear or obvious .
State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The appellate court must “assume[ ] that the [jury] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (first alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Hobart Alvin Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Hobart Alvin Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Myles Ray Estes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The appellate court must “assume that the fact finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Philip Carlson appeals.5 DECISION Accomplice-liability instruction “[A] failure to object to jury instructions precludes review unless the appellant can show that there was a plain error affecting substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The appellate court must “assume that the [jury] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The appellate court must “assume that the [jury] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015