Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Murphy, 380 N.W.2d 766.

89 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“The court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
20(3); (“The court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“The court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.”).
Deshon Israel Bonnell, Minn. 2022
See Russell, d at 113 (noting that “the fatal wound was inflicted during the course of the robbery even though [the victim] may not have died until later ”); see also State v. Murphy , –72 (Minn. 1986) (stating that felony murder applied when the defendant killed the victim immediately following the rape—the predicate felony —to conceal his crime); see generally Darris, 2 On appeal, the State relies (with one exception) on the statements made by Bonnell in his plea colloquy—and not on so
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-52 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew James Preston, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-52 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A di strict court “may, in [its] discretion, give additional instructions in response to a jury’s question on any point of law.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
20(3)(b); (stating that in response to a jury’s question, a district court may “amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
It is well settled that eve n when the language employed in the Minnesota Constitution exactly mirrors the language employed in the United States Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution may still provide “broader individual rights.” State v. Murphy , .
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Additional instructions may be appropriate when “the interests of justice require that the jury have a 5 full understanding of the case and the rules of law applicable to the facts under deliberation.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
-72 (Minn.1986) (holding .that there, was “no proof’ that would rationally support a lesser offense of indecent liberties, based on evidence that “clearly supported]” rape, including the absence of clothing, defensive wounds on the victim’s hands, and other injuries).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The [district] court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.”
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But the district court may not give additional instructions “in such a manner as to lead the jury to believe that it wholly supplants the corresponding portion of the original charge.”
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In response to a jury’s question on a point of law, the district court may decide “to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” see Minn. R. Crim.
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
The court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.’ ” (); Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that a district court has “the discretion to decide whether to amplify previ *52 ous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all).” IV.
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
d at 595 ( , 772 *104 (Minn.1986)).
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
The court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” (internal citation omitted).
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
en expert testimony supported an inference of intent and “no evidence” suggests the death was negligent or accidental, no rational basis existed for a jury to acquit of intentional murder and convict of unintentional felony murder); (stating that the record “is devoid” of evidence showing the killing-occurred in the heat of passion); (stating record contained “no proof’ that defendant engaged only in indecent liberties with victim to rebut uncontroverted evidence that he raped her).
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
19(3)(l.)(b); (“The court has the discretion to decide *166 whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” (citation omitted)).
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
In State v. Murphy, *297 we held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant murdered his victim “while” he was raping her for purposes of the felony-murder rule, Minn.Stat.
State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Arrendondo 531 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1995
State v. Arrendondo 531 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1995
[]; , 771 n. 3 (Minn.1986).
State v. Thaggard 527 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1995
State v. Thaggard 527 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1995
1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), (upholding trial court’s admission of confession by probationer to probation agent, despite probation agent’s statement to probationer that her main concern was that he would need further treatment— implying that confession would lead to treatment).
State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
This court has “the power to provide broader individual rights under the Minnesota Constitution than are permitted under the United States Constitution.”
State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994