DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olson, 482 N.W.2d 212.

95 citing documents.

  • State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    (growing lights used to grow marijuana in a barn); (growing lights used to grow marijuana in a basement).
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
    (quoting Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit 48 (1989 ed.)).
  • State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • In Re the Welfare of J.R. 655 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of J.R. 655 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Landa 642 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    *370 216 (Minn.1992) (defendant entitled to new trial unless appellate court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that district court’s erroneous instruction had no significant impact on jury).
  • State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
    Even if the jury instruction given at Glowacki’s trial was erroneous, he would only be entitled to a new trial if “it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.”
  • State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    ch by taking into account the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the police have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and if the objective standard is met, we will not suppress evidence or invalidate an arrest “even if the officer making the arrest or conducting the search based his or her action on the wrong ground or had an improper motive.”
  • State v. Glowacki 615 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Glowacki 615 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Carothers 594 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Perkins 582 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Perkins 582 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1998
    ch by taking into account the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the police have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and if the objective standard is met, we will not suppress evidence or invalidate an arrest “even if the officer making the arrest or conducting the search based his or her action on the wrong ground or had an improper motive.”
  • State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    “Defendant should be given a new trial if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error [in jury instructions] had no significant impact on the verdict.”
  • State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Persitz 518 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Persitz 518 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1994
    2 This language would surely have the consequence we feared in State v. Olson, when we said that such an instruction would “tend to inject argument into the judge’s charge and lengthen it unnecessarily.” (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit (1989 ed.)).
  • State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. McCuiston 514 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Jolley 508 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Jolley 508 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1993
    Further, “as a general matter” it is the “wiser course” for trial courts to “avoid as much as possible the giving of instructions on particular kinds of evidence.” In conclusion, we reject the contention that trial courts, when requested, are obliged to include the language from Rawland concerning volition wh
  • State v. Starfield 481 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Starfield 481 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1992
  • State v. LaBatte 482 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1992
  • State v. LaBatte 482 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1992
    This is another criminal appeal — filed herewith — in which the issue is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury on one of the statutory inferences recognized by the legislature in 1989 for application in drug prosecutions.