Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis, 864 N.W.2d 171.

81 citing documents.

State v. Schoenrock 899 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 2017
“Whether a district court’s jury instructions correctly state the law presents a question of statutory interpretation[ that] we review de novo.”
State v. Willis 898 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2017
State v. Willis 898 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[D]etailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[D]etailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“It is well established that detailed definitions of the elements to the crime need not be given in the jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Claude Monroe Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Heath Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Heath Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Jury instructions that confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law are erroneous.”
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tammy Jo Schoenrock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether a district court’s jury instructions correctly state the law presents a question of statutory interpretation, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings 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. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citations and quotations omitted).
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
“An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that the instruction had a significant effect on the jury verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when there is a reasonable likelihood that the instruction had a significant effect on the jury verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Plain-error analysis “requires the defendant to establish (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects the defendant’s substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A defendant generally forfeits the right to contest jury instructions on appeal when the defendant fails to object at trial,” but “[a]n exception to this general rule allows [an appellate court] to consider such a claim under plain-error review[.]”
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by