DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Flores, 418 N.W.2d 150.

185 citing documents.

  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    “[J]ury instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.”
  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
  • State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    We review instructions “in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.”
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (“[Jjury instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.”).
  • State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
    We review jury instructions “in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.”
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “[J]ury instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.”
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    “[J]ury instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.”
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hooks 752 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
    Id.; (stating that retrieving the gun between an altercation with the victim and the shooting, as well as pausing between shots, indicated planning).
  • State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
    (indicating that it would have been preferable for the district court to have used CRIMJIG 11.02 instead of the premeditation instruction actually given).
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    “[J]ury instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain[ ] the law of the case.”
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Moore 699 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Johnson 699 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    “[J]ury instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.”
  • In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
    241, 247-48, 253 (Minn.1999) (stating that bringing rifle to estranged wife’s place of work and quietly approaching her when she went outside to smoke supported inference of premeditation); Moore, d at 361-62 (concluding that removing shotgun from normal storage under the bed, loading it, and placing it on the shelf in the living room before the killing showed planning); (stating that retrieving gun between altercation with victim and shooting indicated planning).