Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stempf, 627 N.W.2d 352.

98 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy Gordon Deflorin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Joseph Rossbach Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each ac t itself constitutes an element of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Howard Stanke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
hat the district court erred by fa iling to give a specific- unanimity instruction when the state charged a single count of fift h-degree controlled-substance crime but then argued to the jury that “it could convict if some jurors found a ppellant possessed the methamphetamine found in the truck while others found he possessed the methamphetamine found on the premises [of his employmen t].”
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Mae Dillon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
11 Dillon relies heavily on this court’s opinion in State v. Stempf , which was issued before the supreme court’s opinions in Crowsbreast, Ihle, and Pendleton.
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Ried Purinton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each act itself constitutes an element of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Donald Leland Quick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Austin Thomas Whiteaker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-59 (Minn. App. 2001) (h olding unanimity re quirement violated when state introduced evidence of two acts of drug posse ssion and argued that the jury could convict defendant without agreement as to which possession occurred, but only charged defendant with one count of drug possession).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Deshon Ellis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each act constitutes an element of the crime.” State v. Stempf
State of Minnesota v. Chateram Prashad Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Charles Tabaka Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This is because “the terroristic-threats statute does not make the identity of the person who is threatened an element of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To support his argument that unanimity instructions were required in this case
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Laco Knockola West Minn. Ct. App. 2016
And “the jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each act itself constitutes an element of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Hall, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Hall, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
That is, the jury must “unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each act itself constitutes an element of the crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Thomas Boutilier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Thomas Boutilier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
23, 2008); (d 352, 355 (Minn. App. 2001)).
State of Minnesota v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (defendant was charged with one count of drug possession based on alleged acts occurring at two different times and two different locations with two different defenses).
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“On the other hand, the jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each act itself constitutes an element of the crime.”
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
RKL Landholdings, LLC v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 1563 University Ave, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
to assert that the jury instructions, which allowed the jurors to disagree about which acts were misrepresentation, violated their right to a unanimous verdict.
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Where jury instructions allow for possible significant disagreement among jurors as to what acts the defendant committed, the instructions violate the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each act itself constitutes an element of the crime.”
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court must avoid jury instructions that “are unclear and potentially raise doubt about the unanimity of the jury verdict.”
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“On the other hand, the jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed if each act itself constitutes an element of the crime.”
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
his workplace; and (2) that he possessed methamphetamine found in the truck in which he was riding when he arrived at work.” (emphasis added).
State v. Dalbec 789 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Dalbec 789 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Appellant relies primarily on this court’s
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
But if each act itself constitutes an element of the crime, “the jury must unanimously agree on which acts the defendant committed.”
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007