Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Perkins, 353 N.W.2d 557.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
14 guilty despite the law and the facts.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In criminal cases, district courts may not direct a verdict for the prosecution nor may it “instruct the jury that any of the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a 18 reasonable doubt, absent a judicial admission by the defendant of any of the elements.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
es the power of a jury to acquit a defendant “despite the law and the facts,” that power “is not a right of juries but something which results from a number of things including the right of a criminal defendant to have a jury trial, the rule prohibiting postverdict inquiry into the thought processes of jurors, and the rules against appellate review of verdicts of acquittal.” d 557, 561 (Minn. 1984); (quoting Perkins to conclude that there is no requirement to instruct a jury on its right of null
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(defining jury lenity as “the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(noting that district court may direct a verdict on an element of an offense when there has been “a judicial admission by the defendant”); Lamere v. State , 278 N.W .2d 552, 557 (Minn. 1979) (recognizing that if a defendant “actually admits certain elements, then the court properly may so instruct
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Perkins , , 561 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that the general rule against directing a verdict on an element does not apply where there has been “a judicial admission by the defendant”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although a jury has “the power of lenity—that is, the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts,” the district court “may bar a defense attorney from arguing jury nullification .” State v. Perkins , 1-62 (Minn. 1984) (quotation omitted).
Berry Alan Willis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court “may not instruct the jury that any of the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a reasonabl e doubt, absent a judicial 6 admission by the defendant of any of the elements.” State v. Perkins
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
which Watkins cites, the district court did not tell the jury that any elements of the two criminal-sexual-conduct offenses had been proven.
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An acquittal may simply be the 8 result of the jury exercising the “power of lenity.” Id.; d 557, 561 (Minn. 1984) (defining the jury’s power of lenity as “the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts”).
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
12 This recognition acknowledges the jury’s “lenity” or “nullification” authority, which is its “raw power to bring in a verdict of acquittal in the teeth of the law and the facts.” (explaining “the extraordinary power of the jury to issue a not-guilty verdict even if the law as applied to the proven facts establishes that the defendant is guilty”).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We recognize the jury’s power to exercise lenity in a criminal case by returning a not-guilty verdict “despite the law and the facts.”
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This is because “the jury in a criminal case has the power of lenity— that is, the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts.”
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Similarly, “Miranda generally does not apply to temporary investigative detentions.”
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-62 (Minn.1984) (discussing the power of lenity and its consequences).
McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
We have acknowledged that the jury in a criminal case has a “raw power of lenity.” -62 (Minn.1984).
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hannam 601 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Hannam 601 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(when jury believes defendant guilty of two offenses, it may through the exercise of lenity convict him of only one.)
State v. Green 538 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Green 538 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. State 407 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. State 407 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“It is clear that the jury in a criminal case has the power of lenity — that is, the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts.”
State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(trial court erred in imposing a sentence for assault in the second degree greater than the statutory maximum of five years); (trial court erred in imposing a 36 month sentence when the statu *847 tory maximum for attempted assault in the seco
State v. Skerjance 397 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Skerjance 397 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Knaak 396 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Knaak 396 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
This rule is based upon the power of leniency: the jury’s ability “to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts.”