DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schifsky, 69 N.W.2d 89.

53 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “Even if a defendan t is wrongfully denied the right to be present at every stage of trial, a new trial is warranted only if the error was not harmless.” State v. Sessions , ().
  • , A18-0348 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The rule excluding hearsay, however, does not apply if “the statement is introduced merely to prove the fact of its being made and not to prove the truth of what the communication contains.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 539, (“testimony means the statement made by the witness under oath in the trial of a case or in a legal proceeding.”) 10 burden of proving that his waiver was not voluntary and knowing.
  • In re the Matter of: Brian Hirabayashi v. Chantha Sorn, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • In re the Matter of: Brian Hirabayashi v. Chantha Sorn, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 539, (stating both that “[a] witness, of course, is one who has been sworn according to law[,]” and that “testimony means the statement made by the witness under oath in the trial of a case or in a legal proceeding”).
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    See State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 539–40, –94 (1955) (holding that admission of testimony by officers concerning wife’s statements to them did not violate section 595.02).
  • State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    State v. Schifsky, 243 *395 Minn. 533, 539, -94 (1955).
  • State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    defendant and his counsel”); (court's response to two questions without notifying the attorneys or permitting the defendant to be present when answering the questions was error); (error for court to respond to questions "without notifying counsel or allowing counsel to be present”); State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533 , -98 (1955) (error for court to answer jury's questions in open court, but without counsel or defendant present); Charles, d at 433 (error for court and attorneys to discuss the cour
  • State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Sessions 621 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 2001
    State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 543
  • State v. Meemken 597 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Meemken 597 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    “A prejudicial error has been defined as an error which affected the final result of the case and was prejudicial to a substantial right of the party assigning it.” State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 544 , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
    4 The test to determine if the communication was prejudicial is “whether or not the error affected the result; if it did not, it is not reversible error.” State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 544
  • State v. Petrich 494 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Petrich 494 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    ANALYSIS During jury deliberations, the judge and jury should not communicate except “in open court and, where practicable, in the presence of counsel * * * and in criminal cases in the presence of the defendant.” State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 543
  • State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 539
  • State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 543
  • State v. Thompson 413 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Thompson 413 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In State v. Shifsky, 243 Minn. 533 , a prosecution for assaulting a police officer, the supreme court held admissible a declaration defendant’s wife made to a police officer that defendant was threatening to shoot her.
  • State v. McGath 370 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1985
  • State v. McGath 370 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1985
    State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533
  • State v. Kindem 338 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Kindem 338 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1983
    State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533
  • State v. Richardson 332 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Richardson 332 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1983
    State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533
  • State v. Ming Sen Shiue 326 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Ming Sen Shiue 326 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1982
    Werner Co., Inc., Cronquist v. City of Minneapolis, 258 Minn. 30 , State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533
  • Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
  • Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
    As to application of a “harmless error” approach, see State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 546 , Booth v. Spindler, 261 Minn. 79
  • State v. Ford 322 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Ford 322 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 1982
    In support of the trial court’s approach, the state points to our decision in State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533
  • State v. Mims 235 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Mims 235 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 1975
    The state concedes error by the trial judge but, relying principally on State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533 , would have the question of a new trial turn on whether the error was prejudicial to defendant’s right to a fair trial.
  • State v. Spencer 216 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Spencer 216 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1974
    See, State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533 , 3 Am.
  • State v. Purdy 153 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Purdy 153 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1967
    State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533 , 69 N. W. (2d) 89 ; Draper v. United States, supra; People v. Coffey, supra.
  • Rheinberger v. First National Bank of Saint Paul 150 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1967
  • Rheinberger v. First National Bank of Saint Paul 150 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1967
    State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533 , 69 N. W. (2d) 89 .
  • State v. Moller 149 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Moller 149 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1967
    State v. Dumas, 118 Minn. 77 , , 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439; State v. Loomis, 27 Minn. 521 , ; State v. Billings, 96 Minn. 533 , ; State v. Smith, 116 Minn. 228 , ; *188 State v. Wellman, 143 Minn. 488 , ; State v. Lyckholm, 150 Minn. 532 , ; State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533 , 69 N. W. (2d) 89 ; 5B Dunnell, Dig.
  • State v. Bristol 149 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Bristol 149 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1967
    Mr. Justice Frankfurter in DiBella v. United States, 369 U. S. 121, 124 , 82 S. Ct. 654, 656 , 7 L. ed. (2d) 614, 617, said: “* * * This insistence on finality and prohibition of piecemeal review discourage undue litigiousness and leaden-footed administration of justice, particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases.” This court in State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533, 537 , 69 N. W. (2d) 89, 93 , held: “The statute authorizing the trial court to certify important or doubtful questions is n
  • State v. Currie 143 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1966