Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In accordance with this, it is desirable for the court to explain the elements of the offense rather than simply to read statutes.” (citations omitted).
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In accordance with this, it is desirable for the court to explain the elements of the offense rather than simply to read statutes.” (citations omitted).
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Jury instructions must define the elements of the crime charged and “it is desirable for the court to explain the elements of the offense rather than simply to read statutes.”
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.”
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.” (citation omitted).
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
It is an abuse of the district court’s discretion to refuse to give an instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case “if there is evidence to support it.”
Youngquist v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 716 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Youngquist v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 716 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“An instruction is in error if it materially misstates the law.” State v. Kuhnau,, (citations omitted).
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
State v. Jacobson 697 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2005
However, in explaining the intent required to establish conspiracy we have stated: “A conscious and intentional purpose to break the law is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy * * *.” (emphasis added).
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“A conscious and intentional purpose to break the law is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy and consists of two distinct crimes: the conspiracy and the substantive crime, which is the object of the conspiracy.”
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003