Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Acosta

No. C3-99-1785 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2000)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Acosta

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Porte

    832 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that if the state does not make harmless error argument, this court is not required to undergo harmless error analysis but may do so under certain circumstances

    The district court prepared its instruction by following two unpublished opinions in which this court distinguished permissive-inference instructions from the instructions given in Olson and LaBatte. See State v. Otterson, No. C1–00–1419, 2001 WL 410282 at *2 (Minn.App. Apr. 24, 2001); State v. Acosta, No. C3–99–1785, 2000 WL 1146120 at *3 (Minn.App. Aug. 15, 2000). The unpublished opinions of this court are, of course, not precedential. Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(c) (2012); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc., 676 N.W.2d 672, 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004).