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. Mims, 235 N.W.2d 381.

36 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    Randolph bases his argument on two supreme court opinions:
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Judges have the “pervasive responsibility” to avoid “both the reality a nd the appearance of any impropriety.”
  • Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
    See Brown v. State , State v. Mims
  • State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    the phrase “structural error,” the supreme court in State v. Mims, held that a judge’s uninvited entry into the jury room during deliberations and in the absence of the defendant and counsel requires automatic reversal because it “offends the integrity of the proceedings and risks influencing the jury’s decisional process in some degree, however difficult to define or impossible to measure.” 306 Minn. 159, 169
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
    In State v. Mims, we said “that in any criminal case any communication relating to the case occurring during a judge’s uninvited entry into the jury room during deliberations and in the absence of defendant and counsel constitutes reversible error.” 306 Minn. 159, 165 , -68 (Minn.2004) (applying the “strict rule” from Mims).
  • State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
    State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 168
  • State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
    though we did not use the phrase “structural error,” we have held that a judge’s uninvited entry into the jury room during deliberations and in the absence of defendant and counsel requires automatic reversal because it “offends the integrity of the proceedings and risks influencing the jury’s decisional process in some degree, however difficult to define or impossible to measure.” State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 169
  • State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
    See State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 168
  • Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
  • Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
    At the very least, such unwarranted entrance disrupts the jury’s deliberations, intrudes upon their independence, and transgresses the carefully drawn lines of demarcation between the functions of the trial judge and the functions of the jury- 306 Minn. 159, 169
  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    “An act, a sentence, or a word from the presiding judge may exert a controlling influence on the verdict.” State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 163 , (quotations omitted).
  • Pederson v. State 649 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 2002
  • Pederson v. State 649 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 2002
    This pervasive responsibility includes avoidance of both the reality and the appearance of any impropriety * * State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 168
  • State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    23, 1993); (error for court to answer jury’s questions without contacting defense counsel); cf. State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159 , (error for judge to enter jury room and confer with jurors about their deliberations).
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
    State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 167-68 , (footnotes omitted).
  • State v. Crandall 452 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Crandall 452 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159
  • State v. Oden 385 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Oden 385 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 168
  • State v. Bennett 383 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Bennett 383 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 168-69
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Hill 287 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Hill 287 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1979
    It is clear from this court’s decision in State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159 , that any communication relating to the case (e.g-., as to when the jury might reach a verdict) occurring during the trial court’s uninvited entry into the jury room and in the absence of defendant and counsel constitutes reversible error.
  • Meinke v. Lewandowski 237 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
  • Meinke v. Lewandowski 237 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1975
    Our recent decision in State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159 , is also premised on our fundamental concern that the jury exercise its factfinding function free from any influence, however unwitting or well-motivated, by the trial judge who is likely to be perceived by the jurors as an awesome and dominating figure.