Supreme Court of Minnesota· 12/4/2013

State v. Watkins

Citations

840 N.W.2d 21
2013 WL 6252424
2013 Minn. LEXIS 742

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that, absent demonstrated prejudice, the omission of an element of the offense from jury instructions does not require a new trial
holding that failure to instruct the jury on the “knowingly” element of violation of a domestic assault no contact order was plain error that affected defendant’s substantial rights, requiring reversal and remand for new trial
explaining that a reasonable belief may negate the existence of a mental state essential to a charged crime
stating that in determining whether the omission of an element of a charged offense was prejudicial, an appellate court “may consider, among other factors, whether: (1) the defendant contested the omitted element and submitted evidence to support a contrary finding, (2
reversing and remanding for new trial, after considering plain-error test, where the jury instructions omitted the “knowingly” element
reaffirming “that the omission of an element of a crime in a jury instruction does not automatically require a new trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Been, Consideration, Dietzen, Lillehaug, Submission, Took

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.