Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2026See State v. Jackson, 773 N.W.2d 111 , 122–23 (Minn. 2009) (concluding the prosecutor gave “a legitimate explanation of the State’s burden”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Underwoodgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Underwood, 281 N.W.2d 337, 344 (Minn. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ayersgreen2 sentences2007Cf. State v. Ayers, 303 Minn. 562, 562 , 228 N.W.2d 547, 547 (1975) (holding that it was not prejudicial error in a bench trial for the court to state the wrong standard of review — clear and convincing, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt— when “the trial court made it clear that he applied the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in finding defendant guilty”). 2007Cf. State v. Ayers, 303 Minn. 562, 562 , 228 N.W.2d 547, 547 (1975) (holding that it was not prejudicial error in a bench trial for the court to state the wrong standard of review — clear and convincing, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt— when “the trial court made it clear that he applied the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in finding defendant guilty”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos
green
1 sentence2016We recently reached a similar conclusion in Bustos, explaining that the district court’s errors regarding the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and the past-pattern jury instruction not only significantly affected Bustos’s trial, but left unchecked would also have a substantial and deleterious effect on future trials (and, not insignificantly, undercuts the historic standard of proof imposed on the State in criminal trials). 861 N.W.2d at 665 n.7. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. at 2363 . 2001Id. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. at 2363 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.