Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Darris, 648 N.W.2d 232.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mitchel Jerome Kasper Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (discussing considered procedural hearing rights, the same principles guide our review of a peremptory removal.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Deshon Israel Bonnell, Minn. 2022
d 232, 239 (Minn. 2002); –86 (Minn. 2017) (noting that this court only needed to analyze “causal relationship” because “the requisite time and distance between the attempted aggravated robbery and the killing” were not at issue).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
error was plain.”); (holding that it was plain error to give no -adverse-inference instruction without obtaining defendant’s consent).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(words and acts of shooter); (nature of the killing); (use of a deadly weapon).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Darris , -37 (Minn. 2002) (inferring intent from “the nature of the killing,” which included “multiple blows to the head”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Darris , 40 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Gomez, d at 880; -41 (Minn. 2002); State v. Rosen, 280 Minn. 550, 550-51
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
See State v. Darris , , 240 (Minn. 2002) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 611.11 (2016).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Sam 904 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sam 904 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When there is no objection to jury instructions at trial, we will review a claim of error on appeal if the three elements of the plain-error test are satisfied: “(1) there must have been error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But this error does not require reversal unless Ellis demonstrates that “the facts of th is case make the error prejudicial” and “me[ets ] his heavy burden of showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that giving the instruction had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
State v. Webster 894 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2017
State v. Webster 894 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2017
We limit our review of the sufficiency of the evidence to ascertaining whether' “the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the [appellant] guilty.”
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A jury may infer a person's intent to kill from the nature of the killing.” (); (noting that intent can be inferred where the gun was fired at the victim at close range).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
“[T]he act that constitutes the underlying felony may occur before, during, or after the killing,” (), but “[a] conviction for felony murder will be upheld only when the killing and the felony are part of ‘one continuous transaction,’ ” id.
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
(holding that it was error to give the instruction without getting the defendant’s ).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by