Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. LaForge, 347 N.W.2d 247.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Whitehead also relies on State v. LaForge, to support his argument that the district court abused its discretion when it did not define the phrases “legal custodian” and “lawful custodian.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
v. Glowacki, 402-03 (Minn.2001) (holding that a new trial motion adequately preserves a jury instruction error but stressing that the error "must be one of fundamental law or controlling principle,” and applying the harmless error standard to an erroneous instruction that the defendant had a duty to retreat before defending against an offense in the home); 256 (Minn.1984) (holding that jury instruction error is preserved by new trial motion under Rule 26.03, subd.
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
18(3) (“An error in the instructions with respect to fundamental law or controlling principle may be assigned in a motion for a new trial though it was not otherwise called to the attention of the court.”); , 222 n. 12 (Minn.1995)
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. White 468 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. White 468 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Begbie 415 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Begbie 415 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of Albert Lea v. Tasker 411 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of Albert Lea v. Tasker 411 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ferguson 406 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ferguson 406 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court found the phrase “Unless you find evidence tending to show lack of such intention” may have impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the accused.
State v. Roden 380 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Roden 380 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Peterson 375 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Peterson 375 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Henderson 355 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Henderson 355 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Greensky 348 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1984
State v. Greensky 348 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1984
(holding that it was plain error for trial court to give an instruction which may have misled the jury into thinking that defendant had the burden of proving lack of intent).