Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kuhnau, 622 N.W.2d 552.

273 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An error in the jury instructions requires reversal unless it was harmless, meaning that we can say beyond a reasonable doubt the error “had no significant impact on the verdict.” –59 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 552, 556 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Kuhnau , –56 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court abuses its discretion if it refuses to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case “if there is evidence to support it.” State v. Kuhnau
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 552, 557 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(applying statute and caselaw to determine whether a jury instruction misstated the law).
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Kuhnau , , 555-56 (Minn. 2001).
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Kuhnau , , 556 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Kuhnau , , 556 (Minn. 2001).
The State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court r eviews the jury instructions in their entirety to determine if they “fairly and adequately explain the law.” Id.; d 552, 555-56 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[B]oth knowledge of an agreement and evidence of intent to commit the crime or act that is the object of the conspiracy” are required for a conspiracy offense.).
State v. Mikulak 903 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Kuhnau , -58 (Minn. 2001) (reversing conviction of conspiracy to commit a first-degree sale where the instruction on first-degree sale did not include the knowledge element); see also 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 20.02 (2015) (requiring the state to prove that the defendant “knew or believed” the substance sold was a
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An instructi on is in error if it materially misstates the law.” State v. Kuhnau , .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We review the denial of a requested jury in struction for abuse of discretion and focus our analysis “on whether the court’ s refusal to give [the] reque sted instruction resulted in error.” State v. Kuhnau
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We review the jury instructions in their entirety to determine if they “fairly and adequately explain the law.’-’ Id.; -56 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[I]t is desirable for the court to explain the elements of the offense rather than simply to read statutes.” 5 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 (identifying elements of conspiracy crime) (2012); (discussing elements of controlled-substance conspiracy crime).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186, (requiring “common object” of conspiracy to commit the criminal offense that is the “object” of the conspiracy); (stating that agreement to conspire “must be shown by evid
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In applying this analysis, we view the jury instructions “in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.” -56 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Luke Vernon Kjono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by