Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Heinzer, 347 N.W.2d 535.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Finally, “a trial court need not define every phrase or word used in the [jury] instructions, especially when they are used in their ordinary sense and are commonly understood.” State v. Davis , n.3 (Minn. 2015); see also, e.g., State v. Heinzer , (“Words of common usage within the ordinar y understanding of a juror need not be defined by the court.”), rev. denied (Minn. July 26, 1984).
State of Minnesota v. James Roland Bain Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. James Roland Bain Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding the jury instructions did not need to define the term “resist” because it was a common word), review denied (Minn. July 26, 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Although the testimony of the defendant and the complainant differed sharply, the jury is entitled to believe the complainant’s account of the events.” review denied (Minn. July 26, 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. July 26, 1984).
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Although jury instructions were not at issue in Beito , the holding of the case supports the instructions given here: “leaving the property at some location where it may or may not be found * * * unconcerned whether it is recovered or not.” It has long been clear that “words of common usage within the ordinary understanding of a juror need not be defined by the court.”
State v. Blair 402 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Blair 402 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Ahiagbede 394 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Ahiagbede 394 N.W.2d 187 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Pedersen 382 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Pedersen 382 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-38 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet.
State v. Hanson 382 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hanson 382 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Patten v. State 378 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Patten v. State 378 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Folley 378 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Folley 378 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Where the case hinges upon conflicting testimony, “weighing the credibility of the witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” ().
State v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Detailed instructions need not be given “if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements.” (emphasis added).
State v. Williams 363 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Williams 363 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Backus 358 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Backus 358 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ronning 356 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ronning 356 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Trotter 354 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Trotter 354 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Thomas 352 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Thomas 352 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“[Wjeighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” Id
State v. Armstrong 352 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Armstrong 352 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by