Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Begbie, 415 N.W.2d 103.

35 citing documents.

Donavon Dexter Boone, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-06 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 103, 104-05 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
7 We rejected a -06 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous.” , rev. denied (Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(recognizing “the jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible means the defendant used to commit the offense in order to conclude that an element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (citing Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817-18 (1999)); rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
21, 1990); State v. Begbie , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
11, 2015); State v. Begbie , -06 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that the di strict court did not err by not requiring the jury to unanimously agree which of two potential individuals were the victim of appellant’s terroristic threats where appellant threatened a woman and her husba nd over the phone, and the applicable statute did not make t
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-57 (Minn. App. 2011) (distinguishing Stempf on ground that defendant was alleged to have engaged in single behavioral incident); (concluding that right to unanimous verdict was not violated because appellant threatened both wife and husband), review denied (Minn. 12 Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“But the jury does not have to unanimously agree on the facts underlying an element of a crime in all cases,” and “unanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed,” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota,Respondent v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota,Respondent v. Maceo Valdez Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “unanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
y which of several possible means the defendant used to commit the offense in order to conclude that an element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (“[T]he jury does not have to unanimously agree on the facts underlying an element of a crime in all cases.”); (“[U]nanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Therefore, if appellant assaulted any person while in P.J.’s home, he would have assaulted “a person within the building.” Moreover, “unanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed.” (quotation omitted) (affirming 5 defendant’s terroristic threats conviction even though the jury may not have agreed on which victim the defendant intended to terrorize), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[U]nanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wenthe 845 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Our cases have previously held that “[w]here jury instructions allow for possible significant disagreement among jurors as to what acts the defendant committed, the instructions violate the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict.” Stempf, d at 354 ( review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-31 (Minn.2007); Stempf, d at 355 ; -06 (Minn.App.1987), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Enyeart 676 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Finally, “unanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed.” (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Stempf 627 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Stempf 627 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(failure to object at trial or to move for a new *739 trial waived right to raise issue of jury unanimity on appeal but court considered the issue in the interests of justice), pet.