Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721.

139 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tathony Maudell Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that defendant’s failure to request instruction constitutes waiver of argument, resulting in review for plain error); State v. O’Meara, (similar).
Court of Appeals State of Minnesota v. Ge Yang Gaïtas, J. Dissenting, Moore, III, McKeig, Hennesy, JJ Minn. 2026
(holding that “[a] defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given” forfeits the issue on appeal unless there is plain error).
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Bilbro Minn. 2025
(concluding that there was sufficient evidence to show a past pattern of domestic abuse where the State introduced evidence that the defendant threatened, pushed, and injured a victim but was not convicted of any crimes based on thes
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Heller Minn. 2024
(stating that the statute does not “specify a minimum number of incidents which must be proven in order to find a ‘pattern’ ”).
State of Minnesota v. Tracey Dee Keyes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given to the jury generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Sean Anthony Porter Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Steven John Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Rarity Shemeire Abdul Lampkin Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Randip E. Satoskar Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Due process requires that every element of the offense charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.” State v. Cross
State of Minnesota v. Albert James Conant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Maung Soe Myint Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “Due process requires that every element of the offense charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.” State v. Cross
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Dupree Jamison Minn. Ct. App. 2021
While a defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or object to instructions generally constitutes a forfeiture of that issue on appeal, we may review the jury instructions for plain error , State v. Crowsbreast
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wendlin Linderman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Edward Canady Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Tywan Rulford Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Garcia-Espino Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Elizabeth Greyeagle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Caleb John Permann Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Raynold Sleen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998); n.3 (Minn. 2015) (clarifying that “forfeiture” describes failure to make timely assertion of a right).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Lavell Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. James Earl Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christian Anthony Schutz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Daniel Kable Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Valerian Jacobson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Michael Kuchenbecker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alberto Muniz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Phoebus Phaeton Apollo Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Leland Quick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Zane Robert Stigen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(noting that a failure to object to an omission in a jury instruction or propose a specific jury instruction constitutes a forfeiture of the right to appeal the issue).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Deshon Ellis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given to the jury generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Chateram Prashad Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A defendant’s failure to propose specific jury instructions or to object to instructions before they are given to the jury generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Charles Tabaka Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[A] failure to object will not cause an appeal to fail if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.”).
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Susan Patrice Long Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Susan Patrice Long Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Wesley Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nonetheless, “a failure to object will not cause an appeal to fail if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” d 721, 726 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the prior misconduct could be established by the state 4 by clear and convincing evidence.” 725 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015