DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martin, 211 N.W.2d 765.

61 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
    –72 (Minn. 1973) (adopting procedures set forth in Standards Relating to Trial by Jury § 5.4 (A.B.A.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    at 771-72 (Minn. 1973) (adopting instructions for district courts to use with a deadlocked jury).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    the supreme court held that the district court erred by suggesting to a deadlocked jury that it was required to reach “a unanimous result” and that the “case must at some time be decided.” Id.
  • State of Minnesota v. Bryon Christopher Hultquist Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • State of Minnesota v. Bryon Christopher Hultquist Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    “A court, therefore, can neither inform a jury that a case must be decided, nor allow the jury to believe that a ‘deadlock’ is not an available option.” (- 73 (Minn. 1973) -10 (Minn. 1994)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    (explaining that instructing a deadlocked jury that they must reach a verdict is considered a “dynamite charge” that is improperly coercive, and as such, if a district court decides to give a supplemental instruction, it should reiterate the jury-instruction language on a unanimous verdict).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    See, (noting that trial court may instruct jury “to consult and deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement consistent with their individual judgments”).
  • State v. Decker 916 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 2018
  • State v. Decker 916 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 2018
    See, e.g. , State v. Caldwell , , 592 (Minn. 1982) (addressing witnesses' exposure to media photographs of *389 defendant before trial); State v. Martin , 297 Minn. 359 , , 766 (1973) (holding that it was prejudicial for a jury to be exposed to the defendant's picture in a mug shot photo album).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Our supreme court has held that an instruction that tells the jury that deadlock is not an option is not “consistent with our concept of a fair trial.” State v. Martin , 297 Minn. 359, 360
  • State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Angela Tharnaa Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    In State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, the supreme court concluded that the district court erred by suggesting to a deadlocked jury that it was required to reach “a unanimous result” and that any juror with a minority view should acquiesce to the majority view.
  • State of Minnesota v. Charles Lafond Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Charles Lafond Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “A court, therefore, can neither inform a jury that 6 a case must be decided, nor allow the jury to believe that a ‘deadlock’ is not an available option.” (citing State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, ).
  • State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Olsen 824 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    “A court, therefore, can neither inform a jury that a case must be decided, nor allow the jury to believe that a ‘deadlock’ is not an available option.” (citing State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , ).
  • State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
    297 Minn. 359, 371-72 , -72 (1973).
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Relying on Charles and State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , Moon argues that the district court (1) erred by sending a note to the jury in response to a question rather than responding in open court, and (2) improperly coerced the jury to reach a verdict.
  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    See Kelley, d at 909-10 (concluding while court’s communications were not coercive on their face, they did not provide careful description of jury obligations, which the court approved in State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , ).
  • State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    ANALYSIS ’ Jury Instruction In a criminal case, it is permissible for the trial court to instruct the jury to “consult and deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement consistent with their individual judgments.” State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 373
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
    If a trial court’s *911 instructions appear to have coerced a jury to reach a unanimous verdict, State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , -770 (1973), or allowed the jury to believe that a deadlock is not a possible outcome to their deliberations, a new trial is necessary.
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Peterson 530 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 367
  • State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
    Moreover, in State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 871-72 , we specifically approved the language used in this instruction.
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
    State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 366
  • State v. Petrich 494 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Petrich 494 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 366-69 , -70 (1973)
  • State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    In State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 367 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that: *355 A hung jury is a legitimate end of a criminal trial, and is the occasionally inevitable result of requiring a unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    *745 State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 366
  • State v. Vann 372 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Vann 372 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359
  • State v. Holly 350 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Holly 350 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359
  • State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
    See, e.g., State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359
  • State v. Phelps 328 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Phelps 328 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1982
    The trial court tailored both its initial written instructions, given before the jury reached a deadlock, and its supplementary charge to conform with the standards approved in State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359
  • State v. Packer 295 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Packer 295 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1980
    While the trial court should have given the instruction approved in State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , as part of its original instructions, thereby forewarning the jury how it should proceed to forestall a deadlock before there was a majority or minority, the trial court did not prejudicially err in giving this instruction for the first time when the jury appeared to be deadlocked.
  • Schultz v. State 290 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1980