Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bauer, 245 N.W.2d 848.

64 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jessica Clara Aydt Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 439 (1992).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Quan Turner Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Quan Turner Minn. 2026
d 848, 859 (Minn. 1976) (quoting Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (1966)).
State of Minnesota v. Amber Dae Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Morton Post, III Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kou Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kou Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Margaret Ann Frank Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Margaret Ann Frank Minn. Ct. App. 2024
ental-health status, the district court’s acceptance of her waiver of counsel was “cursory.” In support of this argument, Frank correctly observes that, if the “mental competency of the defendant comes into question,” the law requires a district court to ensure that the defendant is competent to “make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to the assistance of counsel.” -36 (Minn. 1977) (reversing an order denying postconviction relief because a presentence investigation report—that the d
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A defendant has a due process right not to be tried [and] convicted of a criminal charge if [the defendant] is legally incompetent.” (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975)); -55 ( Minn. 1976) (applying Drope in Minnesota).
State of Minnesota v. Randip E. Satoskar Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 848, 854-55 (Minn. 1976).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Lee Wachter Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court violates due process when, having reason to doubt the defendant’s competence, it does not “observe procedures adequate to en sure the defendant’ s competency.” State v. Bauer
State of Minnesota v. Brian Anthony Varnado Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jude Thomas Mary O’Neill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The Mills court did not say what it meant by “gave proper weight.” O’ for his proposition that we must afford “[n]o deference .
State of Minnesota v. Abdifatah Abdullahi Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Pate, 383 U.S. at 378, 86 S. Ct. at 838; -55 (Minn. 1976).
State of Minnesota v. Payam Naderipour Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Lee Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bauer , 310 Minn. 103, 108, 24
Clayton James Hanks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 108
State of Minnesota v. Michael Timothy Reiten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 720 (quotation omitted); State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 117
State of Minnesota v. Cory James Bebeau Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Incumbent on the district court is the duty to remain vigilant in “ensuring that the defendant is competent to stand trial.” State v. Bauer , 310 Minn. 103, 114
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]hroughout the course of criminal proceedings a trial judge must be vigilant in ensuring that the defendant is competent to stand trial and that, when a sufficient doubt of the defendant’s competence arises, he must observe procedures adequate to ensure the defendant’s competency.” State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 114
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ty Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ty Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court has a duty in criminal proceedings to “be vigilant in ensuring that the defendant is competent to stand trial and that, when a sufficient doubt of the defendant’s competence arises, [it] must observe procedures adequate to ensure the defendant’s competency.” State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 114
Bonga v. State 797 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 2011
Bonga v. State 797 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 2011
836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 114 , -55 (1976).
Bonga v. State 765 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
Ganpat’s reliance on State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103 , is misplaced.
In Re the Welfare of D.D.N. 582 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of D.D.N. 582 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 117 , (employing “proper weight” standard in similar circumstance), rev’d in part on other grounds, -63 (Minn.App.
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
“[TJhroughout the course of criminal proceedings a trial judge must be vigilant in ensuring that the defendant is competent to stand trial and * * * must observe procedures adequate to ensure the defendant’s competency.” State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 114
State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 122-23
State v. Thornblad 513 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Thornblad 513 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 122 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a defendant could be competent to stand trial but incompetent to exercise the federal constitutional right of self-representation because the decision to represent oneself requires a higher level of competency than that needed to stand trial.
In Re the Welfare of E.Y.W. 496 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of E.Y.W. 496 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 117
Fox v. State 474 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1991
Fox v. State 474 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1991
896, 903 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (“It has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial.”); see also State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103 , (examining the adequacy of procedures used to ensure competency at trial).
State v. Richards 456 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1990
State v. Richards 456 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1990
at 2541-42 ; State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103 , 123 n. 13, , 859 n. 13 (1976) (“Competence as used here does not refer to legal ability but rather the mental ability to make the waiver,” citing Faretta.).
State v. Hulin 412 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hulin 412 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 110 , , 852 n. 5 (1976).
State v. Hood 405 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hood 405 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 122-23 , -59 (Minn.1976).
State v. Reed 398 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Reed 398 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The supreme court in State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103 , distinguished competency to stand trial from competency to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to assistance of counsel.