Cited by

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

170 citing documents.

State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Fairness requires that [the defendant] be given an opportunity to present his account of the facts to a jury under the proper instructions.” (emphasis added).
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
t 917 (finding that even though the jury instructions were plainly erroneous, there was “no reasonable likelihood that a more accurate instruction would have changed the outcome”); -25 (Minn.App.2002) (holding that even though jury instruction may have been plainly erroneous, any error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights); (holding that plain error in jury instructions was not harmless because there was a “reasonable likelihood ...
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Fairness requires that [the defendant] be given an opportunity to .present his account of the facts to a jury under the proper instructions.”
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
ANALYSIS Jury Instruction on Probable Cause The district court is allowed “considerable latitude in selecting the language of jury instructions.”
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
We give district courts considerable latitude in selecting the language of jury instructions, and an instruction is not “erroneous” unless it “materially misstate[s] the law.”
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
A district court has “considerable latitude in selecting the language of jury instructions.”
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-11 (Minn.2002) (outlining function and limits of special-circumstances rule).
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. DeRosier 719 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2006
State v. DeRosier 719 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
See, (prosecutorial misconduct); (erroneous jury instructions); (evidentiary errors); (responding to jury questions).