Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pendleton, 567 N.W.2d 265.

75 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Sherman Kerall Ratliff. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(explaining that self -defense justification to intentional killing requires evidence that defendant used reasonable force in response to reasonable belief of exposure to great bodily harm or death); Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting abuse-of-discretion standard of review with harmless-error analysis).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Baker, III Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Baker, III Minn. 2024
Failure to instruct the jury on a defendant’s defense when the evidence warrants it requires a new trial unless it can be said, “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.” d 265, 270 (Minn. 1997).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. K. B.-W., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“An error in jury instructions is not harmless and a new trial 8 should be granted if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
see also Minn. Stat. § 609.06 (2020).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“An error in jury instructions is not harmless and a new trial should be granted if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no signi ficant impact on the verdict .”).
Eliseo Nmn Hernandez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although the district court has “considerable latitude” in the selection of a jury instruction, the instruction “ must not materially misstate the law.” State v. Pendleton
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Maxim Kenneth Rhone. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his [or her] theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” ( (Minn .
Berry Alan Willis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An error in jury instructions is not harmless and a new trial should be granted if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.”
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Pollard 900 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An error in jury instructions is not harmless and a new trial should be granted if it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no significant impact on the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Lilienthal 889 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Lilienthal 889 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2017
“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.”
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 265, 270 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
Instead, the issue in Griller was whether the defendant could satisfy the plainness requirement where the district court’s jury instruction appeared to be a
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Devens 852 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Devens 852 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-71 (Minn.1997) (reversing conviction where there was evidence to support defense theory, the instructions misstated the law, and the error was not harmless because the erroneous jury instruction eliminated the defense from the jury’s consideration).
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
We have stated that the district court has “considerable latitude in the selection of the language of a jury charge.”
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Ihle 640 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by