Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Weigold, 160 N.W.2d 577.

26 citing documents.

Crow Wing County State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee LaFlex Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, … Minn. 2026
10 In Pulczinski, –80 (Minn. 1968)—which was not a plain-error case—that a party in a criminal case is never entitled to any relief for errors to which they consented.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Dimitri Limogianni Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
See State v. Weigold,[] –80 (Minn. 1968) (holding that a defendant who affirmatively consented on the record to closing a public trial by stating “I have no objection to this” could not challenge the closure on appeal); Majerus v. Guelsow,[] (citing that the “settled general ru
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. 2024
–80 (Minn. 1968) (holding that a defendant who affirmatively consented on the record to closing a public trial by stating “I have no objection to this” could not challenge the closure on appeal); (citing that the “settled general rule is that a party cannot
Devon James Pulczinski, Minn. 2022
Over time, we have variously suggested three different rules: (1) that a litigant is not entitled to any relief for errors he invited, see Majerus , d at 457; State v. Weigold , –80 22 to limitations that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the district court placed on the presence of the public in the courtroom during the trial.
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Elijah Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, -80 (Minn. 1968) (holding that failure of the accused to give express consent to clearin g the courtroom did not result in violation of his right to a public trial).3 3 We note, however, that “the invited-error doctrine does not require us to turn a blind eye to errors that seriously affect the fairness, i
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
For example, in State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73, 76, -80 (1968), we held that a party who consents to a courtroom closure cannot claim a violation of the right to a public trial.1 We are not the only court to apply the invited-error doctrine to courtroom closures.
State v. Hesse 281 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1979
State v. Hesse 281 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1979
820 , 50 L.Ed.2d 796 (1977); State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73
State v. Bettin 244 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1976
State v. Bettin 244 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1976
See, also, State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73
State v. Presley 220 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 1974
State v. Presley 220 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 1974
See, State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73
Kelsey v. State 214 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1974
Kelsey v. State 214 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1974
See, State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73
State v. Marks 203 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1972
State v. Marks 203 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1972
See State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73 , as to corroboration evidence in sex offenses; State v. Thieme, 281 Minn. 47 , as to challenging jurors; and A. B. A. Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function and the Defense *531 Function, Prosecution Function, § 5.5 (Approved Draft, 1971), as to the
State v. Warford 200 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1972
State v. Warford 200 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1972
1 See, State v. Artez, 286 Minn. 545 , State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73 , State v. Zaccardi, 280 Minn. 291 , State v. Brown, 278 Minn. 186
State v. Bergeron 185 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1971
State v. Bergeron 185 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1971
1 See, also, State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73 , 160 N. W. (2d) 577 ; State v. Tribblet, 281 Minn. 505 , 162 N. W. (2d) 121 ; State v. Artez, 286 Minn. 545 , 176 N. W. (2d) 81 .
State v. Morse 161 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1968
State v. Morse 161 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1968
We disposed of a simi *380 lar contention in State v. Weigold, 281 Minn. 73, 77 , 160 N. W. (2d) 577, 580 , where we held: “* * * What constitutes ‘indecent liberties’ has been defined so often we do not find it necessary to elaborate beyond holding that the acts described by complainant constituted indecent assault under any definition of that crime.