DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Persitz, 518 N.W.2d 843.

36 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Second, Strickland-Green argues that the district court erred by “advis[ing] the jury of the state’s theory of the case.” In support of this argument, in which the supreme court concluded that the district court did not err by refusing to give the defendant’s requested instruction about his theory of the case.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    In general, “[a] party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.”
  • Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “A party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it, but the court need not give the requested instruction if it determines that the substance of the request is contained in the court’s charge.” d 843, 848 (Minn. 1994).
  • State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
    [Thus, the] testimony did not relate to ‘the whole man’ as he was before the crimes.”); (concluding that expert testimony that relies solely on post-indictment records and evaluations of a defendant is not within “the whole man” exception).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
    (“A party is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.”).
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Mahkuk 736 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Bird 734 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Bird 734 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2007
    The state argues that the second Provost exception does not apply because, among other reasons, Grat-zer’s opinions were inconsistent with Bird’s pre-indictment clinical record and were therefore inadmissible under Griese
  • State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Medal-Mendoza 718 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Vazquez 644 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Vazquez 644 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (discussing refusal to give instruction requested by defense).
  • State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
    (concluding that the testimony of experts relying only on post-indictment records and evaluations of a defendant did not fall within the exception outlined in Provost).
  • State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
    As such, “psychiatric opinion testimony is generally not admissible during the guilt phase of a * * * trial.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Schreiber 558 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1997
    Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 6.02 (3d ed. 1990), -50 (Minn.1994), -72 (Minn.1993).
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547, 551
  • State v. Green 538 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Green 538 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    for the proposition that the reviewing court can consider the defense counsel’s closing argument in determining whether the jury instructions were' adequate.
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995