Legal Opinion

State v. Gunderson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 6, 2012No. A11-90PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MINGE, Judge.

Appellant challenges his conviction for felony violation of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that the district court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the elements of the crime, that the district court’s refusal to appoint advisory counsel was reversible error, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Because not instructing the jury that it must find a knowing violation of the HRO is plain error and because there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s decision, we reverse appellant’s…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. State v. WebbSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  3. State v. RameySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  4. Bernhardt v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  5. State v. BairdSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Shank v. Carleton CollegeDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2017
  2. State v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
  3. Joel Armen Underwood, III. v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024
  4. Carlos Heard v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024
  5. State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward LoveCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014

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

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

Powered by the Exa API