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.
16 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 4 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. Goodloegreen2 sentences2016State v. Goodloe, 718 N.W.2d 413, 422 (Minn.2006). 2010Id. at 422 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Broulikgreen2 sentences2026See 10 Minnesota 15 Practice, CRIMJIG 2.03 (2023); see also State v. Broulik, 606 N.W.2d 64, 68-71 (Minn. 2000) (approving the pattern jury instruction on the limited purpose of Spreigl evidence). 5 As the district court did, we recognize the prejudicial nature of the Spreigl evidence against Gomez. 2026See 10 Minnesota 15 Practice, CRIMJIG 2.03 (2023); see also State v. Broulik, 606 N.W.2d 64, 68-71 (Minn. 2000) (approving the pattern jury instruction on the limited purpose of Spreigl evidence). 5 As the district court did, we recognize the prejudicial nature of the Spreigl evidence against Gomez. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ostremgreen2 sentences2025See 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 3.08 (2024) (providing similar reliability factors as in State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1995)). 2025We note that the pattern jury instruction was not used at Lafore’s trial and that this is not challenged on appeal. 10 reliable.” Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d at 921 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2016“The refusal to give a requested jury instruction lies within the discretion of the district court and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.” State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481, 493 (Minn.1998) (quotation omitted).- A district court does not abuse its discretion by using a pattern jury instruction when that instruction accurately states the law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnipseedgreen2 sentences2015In State v. Gassler, the supreme court emphasized that it had explicitly approved the pattern jury instruction as an appropriate instruction on circumstantial evidence. 505 N.W.2d 62, 68 (Minn. 2007) (citing State v. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn. 1980)). 2015The court explained that while the rational-hypothesis test is appropriate for determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, it “does not apply to jury instructions.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gasslergreen1 sentence2015In State v. Gassler, the supreme court emphasized that it had explicitly approved the pattern jury instruction as an appropriate instruction on circumstantial evidence. 505 N.W.2d 62, 68 (Minn. 2007) (citing State v. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Minn. 1980)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M.green1 sentence2015Here, the district court instructed the jury to determine whether the objective facts would “support an officer’s reasonable belie[f] that Mr. Mason was driving.” Probable cause, in addition to being defined as an “honest and strong suspicion,” has also at times been stated in terms of an officer’s “reasonable belief.” See, e.g., In re Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Minn. 1997) (noting that probable cause requires police to have a “reasonable belief”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Clark, 755 N.W.2d 241, 251 (Minn. 3 The pattern jury instruction provides in part: You cannot find the defendant guilty of a crime on the testimony of a person who could be charged with that crime, unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence that tends to convict the defendant of the crime. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olmscheidgreen1 sentence2007In State v. Olmscheid, 492 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Minn.App.1992), we held that the criminal-refusal statute “incorporates to some degree the provisions of the implied consent statute into the crime of refusal.” 2 In Olmscheid , as here, the district court instructed the jury on refusal to test using the pattern jury instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2006In State v. Martin, we upheld the pattern jury instruction on premeditation. 261 N.W.2d 341, 345 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy
green
2 sentences2005The original commentary to CIVJIG 91.40 suggested that the instruction was derived from Canada by handy v. McCarthy, 567 N.W.2d 496 (Minn.1997). 2002The current pattern jury instruction on pre-existing conditions represents a significant departure from these rules in that it permits an allocation of liability to the defendant for a plaintiffs pre-existing condition if the jury is unable to determine what part of the plaintiffs injuries predated the accident. 4A Minnesota District Judges Association, Minnesota Practice, Jury Instruction Guides Civil, JIG 91.40 (4th ed.1999). 2 The commentary to CIVJIG 91.40 suggests its derivation from Canada by Bandy v. McCarthy, 567 N.W.2d 496 (Minn.1997). | 2 | 2002–2005 |
State v. Lowe
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 78 n.3 (observing that the erroneous language in the pattern jury instruction purportedly was taken from this court’s decision in State v. Lowe, 68 N.W. 1094 (Minn. 1896) (citing 10 Minn. Dist. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Weltz
green
2 sentences2024Thus, the supreme court determined that the pattern jury instruction given at Coleman’s trial “materially misstated the law.” Id. 2024The supreme court explained that the pattern instruction improperly “attaches the recklessness component to the act itself, and allows for conviction based on an impermissibly low risk of death.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Meger
green
1 sentence2024Heard argues that, even though the rule of law announced in Coleman adheres to precedent, it is a new rule of law because, before Coleman was decided, “[t]he consensus in the legal community—as expressed by the pattern jury instruction—was wrong.” 4 4 Heard relies on Meger, in which the supreme court held that State v. Her, 862 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 2015), announced a new rule of law. 901 N.W.2d at 425 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State of Minnesota v. Ge Her
green
1 sentence2024Heard argues that, even though the rule of law announced in Coleman adheres to precedent, it is a new rule of law because, before Coleman was decided, “[t]he consensus in the legal community—as expressed by the pattern jury instruction—was wrong.” 4 4 Heard relies on Meger, in which the supreme court held that State v. Her, 862 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 2015), announced a new rule of law. 901 N.W.2d at 425 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Lindsey
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 662 ; see 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 3.19 (1990). 2016As in Lindsey, the district court here instructed the jury using the pattern jury instruction, which has not changed from the version of which the supreme court approved in Lindsey. 11 Compare 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 3.19 (2015), with 632 N.W.2d at 662 (quoting 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 3.19 (1990). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2016The third question presented by this case is whether the district court erred in its instruction, on reasonable doubt because it used language from State v. Smith, 674 N.W.2d 398 (Minn.2004), rather than th,e language of the pattern jury instruction. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2002The language in the pattern jury instruction that provides that the state does not have to prove intentional infliction of great bodily harm is based on Johnson v. State, 421 N.W.2d 327 (Minn.App.1988). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.