Cited by

“[W]e presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions.”

1(2) ; (listing the elements of kidnapping).

“In Minnesota, there is no requirement that the person be detained for a ‘substantial’ period of time or transported a ‘substantial’ distance.”

s of error occurring at the time of the trial.” (noting that “the st ate’s evidence, consisting solely of the uncorroborated testimony of the complaining witness, is sufficiently marginal to require a careful examination of defe ndant’s claims of error at trial”); (determining that Olson did not apply when state presented “overwhelming” evidence of defendant’s guilt).

See State v. Atkinson , (notin g that references to appellant’s previous arrests were not unfairly prejudicial where the references were “fleeting” and “nonspecific”); see also State v. Budreau , (stating that there is a presumption that the jury follows the district court’s instructions).

See State v. Budreau , -06 (Minn. 2006).

See State v. Budreau , (noting that the law presumes that jurors follow the district court’s instructions).

See State v. Budreau , (stating that the jury is presumed to follow the district court’s curative instructions).

11 We “presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions.” State v. Budreau , d 919, 926 (Minn. 2002).

d 919, 926 (Minn. 2002) (presuming that jurors follow curative instructions); (considering whether impermissible testimony substantially affected the jury’s decision).

“In Minnesota, there is no requirement that the person be detained for a ‘substantial’ period of 6 time or transported a ‘substantial’ distance.”

(stating there is a presumption that the jury follows the district court’s instructions).

(stating there is a presumption that the jury follows the district court’s instructions).

Appellate courts “presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions.”

9 (Minn. 2002); see also Diggins, d at 358 (concluding that cautionary instruction “alleviated any possibility that admission of the evidence would unfairly prejudice the jury”).

“[Appellate courts] presume that jurors follow the [district] court’s instructions.”

the district court clearly and thoroughly instructed the jury regarding the burden of proof.” d 373, 389 n.2 (Minn. 2001); (“[W]e presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions.”).

resolved in favor of the state.” ().

We presume that a jury follows the district court’s instructions, d 919, 926 (Minn. 2002), and based on that instruction, the jury could have found appellant guilty based on a pattern of acts committed against O.W.

(determining that it was not error to admit unobjected-to statements at trial that were brief, lacking in detail, presented only an imprecise suggestion of any prior bad acts by appellant, and never referred to again).

Because “[appellate courts] presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions,” we presume that the jury did not convict Patterson solely because he was a purported gang member.

see also Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S., 200, 211 , 107 S.Ct.