State v. Blawat

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Moallin

    A14-0329 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2014)   Cited 4 times

    Thus, the district court adequately explained the specific intent elements of assault-fear and assault-attempt. See State v. Blawat, 399 N.W.2d 671, 673 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that reading CRIMJIG 13.06, now renumbered as 13.10, was an adequate instruction without the additional instruction on specific intent).

  2. State v. Closmore

    A13-0806 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The district court properly defined the elements of second-degree assault. See Kuhnau, 622 N.W.2d at 556 (explaining that jury instructions are erroneous if they fail to define the crime charged); State v. Blawat, 399 N.W.2d 671, 673 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that the standard instruction adequately defines the elements of second-degree assault). It then, with agreement of both attorneys, exercised its discretion to reread the previous jury instructions in response to the jury's question. See Laine, 715 N.W.2d at 434.

  3. State v. Holen

    A12-2299 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Furthermore, this court has previously held that the instruction currently contained in CRIMJIG 13.10 adequately explains the elements of assault in the second degree, including the element of specific intent. State v. Blawat, 399 N.W.2d 671, 673 (Minn. App. 1987). Because the district court adequately explained the element of specific intent, it did not err in failing to give an additional specific-intent jury instruction.