Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Traxler, 583 N.W.2d 556.

20 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(citing Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(concluding that substituting the phrase “possess with the intent to manufacture” for “sell” in jury instructions “did not materially misstate the law”) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 556, 560 (Minn. 1998) (stating that the district court must instruct the jury on “the particular offense” with which a defendant is charged , and approving instruction defining “sale” of controlled substance as possession of a particular amount of methamphetamine with intent to manufacture).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that controlled- substance possession crime is lesser-included offense of controlled-substance sale crime).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 556, 562 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(reversing conviction for first-degree sale and remanding for resentencing on lesser -included offense of fifth-degree possession of methamphet amine); see also State v. Berstch , (holding that possession of pornography can be an included offense of dissemination o
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
distinction when it noted t hat, “[t]here may be instances where the seized material consists of pills or tablets where the individual items are so alike and the risk of benign substitutes so unlikely that random testing may legitimately permit an inference beyond a reasonable doubt that the requisite weight of the whole mixture is established.” d at 240; see also State v. T raxler, (noting that “Robinson does not .
State v. Carpenter 893 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Distinguished State v. Carpenter 893 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The state nevertheless argues that Robinson is readily distinguishable and that this court ought to abide by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that a trace amount of methamphetamine was sufficient to support a conviction of fifth- degree controlled-substance crime).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that a trace amount of methamphetamine was sufficient to support a conviction of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime).
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (referring to a possession charge as a lesser-included offense of a sale charge).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1(1) (2006) (defining “included offense” as, inter alia, “[a] lesser degree of the same crime”); (treating fifth- degree controlled-substance crime for possession of a controlled substance as a lesser- included offense of first-degree controlled-substance crime for sale of a controlled substance).