Cited by

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

170 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier 874 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2016
-28 (Minn. 2013) (-10 & n.14 (Minn. 2012) (applying plain-error analysis to determine whether a failure to instruct the jury on the intent element of accomplice liability affected the defendant’s substantial rights); (concluding that plain-error analysis is applicable to unobjected-to erroneous jury instruction)).
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota,Respondent v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota,Respondent v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Error District courts are given “considerable latitude in selecting the language of jury instructions, but instructions may not materially misstate the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Delbert Keith Sybrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Delbert Keith Sybrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Folland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Folland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally speaking, an appellate court will not consider an alleged error in jury instructions unless the instructions have been objected to at trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting the language of jury instructions.”
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
District courts are allowed “considerable latitude” in the selection of language for jury instructions, but the instructions must “fairly and adequately explain the law of the case,” d 4 358, 362 (Minn. 2011).
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
3 Milton, d at 809 -10 & n. 14 (applying plain-error analysis to determine whether the district court’s fail *28 ure to instruct the jury on the intent element of accomplice liability affected the defendant’s substantial rights); (concluding that plain-error analysis is applicable to unobjected-to erroneous jury instruction).
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
The trial court has “considerable latitude in selecting the language of jury instructions.”
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by