Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review the instructions “to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case,” and error results if the instruction “materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Raymond Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Raymond Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(discussing essential elements of controlled-substance conspiracy crime).
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “when a district court exercises its discretion and refuses to give a requested instruction, no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown”).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A jury instruction is erroneous when it “materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Thomas Conlin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Thomas Conlin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 552, 556 (Minn. 2001) (“[I]t is desirable for the court to explain the elements of the offense rather than simply to read statutes.”).
State of Minnesota v. Malcolm Roy Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Because jury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense, “failure to properly instruct the jury on all elements of the offense charged” can constitute plain error, (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[J]ury instructions must define the crime charged and explain the elements of the offense to the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Love Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(discussing essential elements of controlled-substance conspiracy crime).
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
Rowe, d at 735 (); see also Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (citing McDonough v. Brite Lite Elec.
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, (rejecting argument that erroneous jury instruction constitutes structural error and noting that harmless-error analysis applies to erroneous jury instructions); -59 (Minn.2001) (analyzing whether an erroneous jury instruction was harmless).
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Fleck 797 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Fleck 797 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2011