Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105.

170 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- 51 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying plain-error review when a party objected to a jury instruction at trial but challenged the instruction for a different reason on appeal), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[A]n appellate court will not consider an alleged error in jury instructions unless the instructions have been objected to at trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez Minn. 2024
15 d at 402–03, —affect our analysis.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christian Portillo, A21-1621, Supreme Court, December 13, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Julian Daniel Valdez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
the district court erroneously instructed the jury that the defendant had a duty to “retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible” when acting in self-defense in his own home.
Minn. 2023
In this case, the jury instructions did not affect Lampkin’s substantial rights because the evidence does not demonstrate a “reasonable likelihood that a properly instructed jury could have accepted [Lampkin’s] claim of self-defense.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Vela argues that her case 10 is like State v. Baird
, A22-0103 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
District courts are given “considerable latitude” in selecting language for the jury instructions, but the instructions “may not materially misstate the law.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-14 (Minn. 2002) (affirming an order for a new trial based on an erroneous duty-to-retreat instruction); see also State v. Koppi , (granting a new trial based on an objected-to instructional error where the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Joseph Z. Livingston, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 105, 113 (Minn. 2002) ; State v. Ihle
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
District courts are given “consid erable latitude” in selecting jury instruction language, and we ordinarily review for abuse of that discretion, d 675, 682 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Under this test, the challenging party must show: 1) error, 2) that is plain, and 3) that affects substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Baird , , 113 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Steven James Hayes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Fairness [under the plain-error standard] requires that [the defendant] be given an opportunity to present his account of the facts to a jury under the proper instructions.”) Allowing Hayes’s second-degree-assault conviction to stand, whe n the jury was directed to find an element of the offen
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Baird , d 105, 113 (Minn. 2002).
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Baird , , 113 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[C]ourts are vested with discretion in managing trials.”); 14 (providing discretion to district courts in selecting jury instructions).
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-14 (Minn. 2002) (affirming an order for a new trial based on an unobjected-to, erroneous duty-to-retreat instruction under the plain-error test).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016