Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Guerra, 562 N.W.2d 10.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
P. 17.05; (“A midtrial reinterpretation of a criminal complaint that constructively amends the charge must comply with the requirements of Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The first requirement of rule 17.05—that “no additional or different offense is charged”—is violated if an amendment “affects an ‘essential element’ of the charged offense,” or “add[s] new charges with different elements,”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A constructive amendment occurs when “the record demonstrates that a defendant is con fronted with [a different or] additional charge after trial has begun.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The purpose of rule 17.05 is “to protect against confusing the jury, violating due process notions of timely notice, and adversely affecting the trial tactics of the defense.” d 10, 13 (Minn. App. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 10, 12-13 (Minn. App. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Guerra , , 13 (Minn. App. 1997) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–46 (Minn. 1999) (noting that “the indictment was never formally amended,” but jury instructions that added vicarious -liability theory was a “variance” from the indictment, subject to rule 17.05); (concluding that state constructively amended the complaint when, midtrial, the district court allowed the state to reopen its case to present additional evidence on new charge).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A ‘different offense’ is charged if an amendment affects an ‘essential element’ of the charged offense.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Rutherford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Rutherford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Therefore, because fifth-degree criminal 1 Appellant relies on State v. Guerra, where we replaced the word “and” with “or” when discussing rule 17.05 and referred to the prejudice prong of rule 17.05 as an “independent proscription.”
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rule 17.05 “is intended to protect against confusing the jury, violating due process notions of timely notice, and adversely affecting the trial tactics of the defense.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Joseph Deluney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Different Offense “A ‘different offense’ is charged if an amendment affects an ‘essential element’ of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A. New or Different Offense “A ‘different offense’ is charged if an amendment affects an ‘essential element’ of the charged offense.”
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
...” *916 13 (Minn.App.1997) (applying Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citation omitted); -13 (Minn.App.1997).