Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Auchampach, 540 N.W.2d 808.

87 citing documents.

State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
State v. Burg 648 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 2002
1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); see also Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 112 , 90 S.Ct.
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Myrland 644 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
2319, 2324 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977)
State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Burg 633 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
For this proposition, (children shot by parent) (children witnessed father murder mother).
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
corroborate it * * * if you have people at a party, you have some corroboration but you don’t,” and later, as to where appellant went after the shooting, “someplace we’ll never know, some place that he knows.” 3 The constitutional presumption of innocence and burden on the state to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are bedrock to our criminal justice system, and we have noted that although a prosecutor’s comment on the failure of the defense to call witnesses to support the def
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)); ("Due process requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every element of the crime charged."); 1 Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 1.8(b), at 68-71 (1986) (discussing the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element o
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The court must “adequately instruct the jury on the state’s burden to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
When determining the adequacy of jury instructions, we have held that “[a] refusal to give a requested jury instruction in a criminal case lies within the broad discretion of the trial court,” and that “[t]he trial court is given considerable latitude in selecting the language for jury instructions.” (citations and internal quotations omitted).
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
We have reviewed the domestic abuse homicide statute on three prior occasions: in *724
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
A party is entitled to a jury instruction to support his theory if evidence exists to support the theory, but if “the substance of a particular instruction is already contained in the court’s instructions to the jury, the court is not required to give the requested instruction.”
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Green 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1995
State v. Green 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1995
ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled matter be, and the same is, remanded to the court of appeals for its consideration in light of this court’s