Cited by

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

93 citing documents.

State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
(quoting in part Minn. R.Evid.
State v. Reese 446 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Reese 446 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mosley 414 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
If a claim of error is not presented to the trial court, this court may still review the claim “if the claim relates to error in ‘fundamental law’ in the jury instructions.”
State v. Eli 402 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Eli 402 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
State v. Richardson 393 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1986
(in error to instruct on a defendant’s “election to kill” victim where defendant had never admitted to intention to kill, but only intention to shoot).
State v. Burns 390 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Burns 390 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lockhart 376 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Lockhart 376 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
State v. Sanders 376 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 1985
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. Stahlberg 373 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stahlberg 373 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Patrick 358 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Patrick 358 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Therefore, we may consider his claim that the instruction requires reversal only if the instruction was “plain error affecting substantial rights,” or an error in “fundamental law.”
State v. McGath 352 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McGath 352 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 551
State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McCloud 349 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McCloud 349 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Even assuming the objection was untimely, we are free to consider the claim on appeal “if the error was ‘plain error affecting substantial rights’ or if the claim relates to error in ‘fundamental law’ in the jury instructions.” citing Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Evans 347 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Fox 340 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 1983
State v. Fox 340 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 1983
State v. Boggess, 312 Minn. 598