Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Malaski, 330 N.W.2d 447.

93 citing documents.

State v. Prtine 799 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2011
State v. Prtine 799 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2011
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
.W.2d 241, 252-53, 256-58 (Minn.2008) (concluding that the state presented legally sufficient evidence to support convictions of aiding and abetting first-degree murder and conspiring to commit first-degree murder, but reversing and remanding for new trial because the district court’s erroneous failure to instruct on accomplice testimony affected appellant’s substantial rights); -53 (Minn.1983) (concluding that the state presented evidence sufficient for a jury to convict, but reversing and rema
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
See Williams, d at 544 ; -53 (Minn.1983).
State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
As a general rule, if defense counsel fails to object to an error at trial, the defendant “is deemed to have forfeited his right to have this court consider that error on appeal.”
State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
Followed State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
State v. Gustafson 610 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2000
State v. Gustafson 610 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2000
“The general rule is that if defense counsel fails to object to error at trial, the defendant * * * is deemed to have forfeited his right to have this court consider that error on appeal.”
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
C. Jury instruction on specific intent The supreme court has held that an error in jury instructions is reviewable in the absence of an objection if it affects substantial rights or involves “fundamental law.” State v. Malaski
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Marquardt 496 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1993
State v. Marquardt 496 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1993
State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(holding defective trial court’s instruction that defendant’s “election to kill” must have been reasonable rather than appropriate instruction that defendant’s “election to defend himself in the way he did” must have been reasonable); (trial cou
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The appellate court may review “errors in fundamental law” or “plain errors affecting substantial rights.” Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Although this court may review plain error not objected to at trial, we conclude that the admission of the videotape was not such an error; the admission did not violate a well-established constitutional right or evidentiary rule.
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
We cannot address this issue unless there is plain error affecting “fundamental laws.”
State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
it is inappropriate in such a case for the trial court to state that the defendant’s “election to kill” must have been reasonable; instead, the trial court should state that the defendant’s “election to defend himself in the way he did” must have been reasonable.
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Smith 448 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Smith 448 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1989