Skip to main content

State v. Cox

Citations

  • 820 N.W.2d 540
  • 2012 WL 4094359
  • 2012 Minn. LEXIS 490

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that a jury did not indicate deadlock by asking “[w]hat happens if we are unable to agree on the third charge”
  • concluding that a jury did not indicate deadlock by asking “[w]hat happens if we are unable to agree on the third charge”
  • holding that the district court erred in convicting defendant “[e]ven though the court did not sentence” defendant on that conviction
  • concluding that the district court did not coerce the jury to reach a verdict in part because the district court instructed the jury on CRIMJIG 3.04 before deliberations and did not communicate to the jury that a verdict needed to be reached in response to a question from the jury
  • observing that the A.B.A. standards “are now reflected in CRIMJIG [3.02]”
  • observing that the A.B.A. standards “are now reflected in CRIMJIG [3.02]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Paul

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.