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 1985–2024 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. Dahlingreen2 sentences2024When deciding whether a defendant was prejudiced by the court’s failure to give a requested lesser-included offense instruction, we consider “the [jury] instructions actually given and the verdict rendered by the jury.” Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d at 599 . 2008See State v. Dahlin, 695 N.W.2d 588 , 599 n. 2 (Minn.2005) (“[A]p-pellate courts must consider the jury instructions given and the verdict actually rendered to determine whether a possibility exists that the jury could have returned a verdict of guilty on only the requested lesser-included offense instruction. | 6 | 14 |
State v. Leinwebergreen2 sentences2005State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419 , 228 N.W.2d at 124 ; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); accord Keeble, 412 U.S. at 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 (stating that where the jury was faced with either convicting on instruction given or acquitting outright, a different verdict may have been reached had the jury been given the requested lesser-included offense instruction). 2005State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419 , 228 N.W.2d at 124 ; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); accord Keeble, 412 U.S. at 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 (stating that where the jury was faced with either convicting on instruction given or acquitting outright, a different verdict may have been reached had the jury been given the requested lesser-included offense instruction). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Shannongreen1 sentence2005State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419 , 228 N.W.2d at 124 ; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); accord Keeble, 412 U.S. at 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 (stating that where the jury was faced with either convicting on instruction given or acquitting outright, a different verdict may have been reached had the jury been given the requested lesser-included offense instruction). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2005As noted above, “the failure to submit lesser-included offenses to the jury is grounds for reversal only if the defendant is prejudiced thereby.” Shepherd, 477 N.W.2d at 516 (citing Bellcourt, 390 N.W.2d at 273 ); see also State v. Edwards, 343 N.W.2d 269, 276 (Minn.1984) (stating that “[a]lthough we believe that the court erred in failing to *599 submit the offense, we do not believe that the error was prejudicial”); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 422 , 228 N.W.2d at 126 . | 1 | 1 |
Keeble v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419 , 228 N.W.2d at 124 ; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); accord Keeble, 412 U.S. at 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 (stating that where the jury was faced with either convicting on instruction given or acquitting outright, a different verdict may have been reached had the jury been given the requested lesser-included offense instruction). 2005State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419 , 228 N.W.2d at 124 ; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); accord Keeble, 412 U.S. at 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 (stating that where the jury was faced with either convicting on instruction given or acquitting outright, a different verdict may have been reached had the jury been given the requested lesser-included offense instruction). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffingreen1 sentence2005State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419 , 228 N.W.2d at 124 ; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); accord Keeble, 412 U.S. at 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 (stating that where the jury was faced with either convicting on instruction given or acquitting outright, a different verdict may have been reached had the jury been given the requested lesser-included offense instruction). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. State
green
1 sentence2024Cooper v. State, 745 N.W.2d 188 , 193- 94 (Minn. 2008). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bellcourt v. State
green
1 sentence2005As noted above, “the failure to submit lesser-included offenses to the jury is grounds for reversal only if the defendant is prejudiced thereby.” Shepherd, 477 N.W.2d at 516 (citing Bellcourt, 390 N.W.2d at 273 ); see also State v. Edwards, 343 N.W.2d 269, 276 (Minn.1984) (stating that “[a]lthough we believe that the court erred in failing to *599 submit the offense, we do not believe that the error was prejudicial”); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 422 , 228 N.W.2d at 126 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Shepherd
green
2 sentences2005As noted above, “the failure to submit lesser-included offenses to the jury is grounds for reversal only if the defendant is prejudiced thereby.” Shepherd, 477 N.W.2d at 516 (citing Bellcourt, 390 N.W.2d at 273 ); see also State v. Edwards, 343 N.W.2d 269, 276 (Minn.1984) (stating that “[a]lthough we believe that the court erred in failing to *599 submit the offense, we do not believe that the error was prejudicial”); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 422 , 228 N.W.2d at 126 . 2005For example, in State v. Shepherd, we concluded that the defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s failure to give a second-degree unintentional felony murder instruction. 477 N.W.2d at 516 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Ruud
green
1 sentence1985The defendant further asserts that his requested instruction on theft by swindle should have been given because it represented his “theory of the case,” relying on our decision in State v. Ruud, 259 N.W.2d 567 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.