Legal Opinion

State v. Schoenrock

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 26, 2017No. A15-1371PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUDSON, Justice.

The question presented to us is whether the district court committed reversible error when it declined to include the phrase “with intent to defraud” in its jury instruction on the elements of theft by false representation under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(3)(iii) (2016). Following a jury trial, appellant Tammy Jo Schoenrock was convicted of two counts of theft by false representation for submitting timesheets and receiving payments for personal care assistant services that she did not perform. The court of appeals affirmed her convictions, concluding that the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. DanielsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  2. State v. KoppiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  3. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas WentheSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
  5. Gulbertson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
  2. State of Minnesota v. Jamie Sara SchmeichelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2026
  3. State of Minnesota v. Tracey Dee KeyesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API