Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vance, 254 N.W.2d 353.
- State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Sime 669 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Caldwell 639 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. Caldwell
639 N.W.2d 64
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A defendant cannot demand a continuance for the purpose of delay or for “arbitrarily choosing to substitute counsel at the time of trial.”
- State v. Martin 614 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 2000
-
State v. Martin
614 N.W.2d 214
Minn. 2000
In order to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements, appellant must submit a foundation that the statements are “actually inconsistent,” or that the declarant “fails to recollect” the prior statement, Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 458
- State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
-
State v. Sanders
598 N.W.2d 650
Minn. 1999
“A defendant may not demand a continuance to delay the proceedings or by arbitrarily attempting to substitute another attorney at the time of trial.” (citing Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. at 299 , d at 264 ); -59 (Minn.1977).
- State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
-
State v. Voorhees
596 N.W.2d 241
Minn. 1999
Substitute counsel will be appointed “‘only if exceptional circumstances exist and the demand is timely and reasonably made.’” See State v. Worthy, 58B N.W.2d 270, 278 (1998) ().
- State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
- State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
- State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
-
State v. Mills
562 N.W.2d 276
Minn. 1997
(stating that a failure to object to testimony at trial generally bars a defendant from objecting to its admission on appeal).
- State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. LaDoucer 477 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Lamar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Lámar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Lamar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Lámar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
- Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
- State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Stroud
459 N.W.2d 332
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-62 (Minn.App.1990) (-59 (Minn.1977)).
- State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Seifert 423 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1988
- State v. Seifert 423 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1988
- State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
State v. Rean
420 N.W.2d 680
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
However, a criminal defendant does not have “the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his choice.”
- Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Case 412 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Case
412 N.W.2d 1
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
536 , 88 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985)
- State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Okegbenro
409 N.W.2d 1
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(error to allow evidence of defendant’s choice to remain silent must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
- State v. Alexander 398 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Alexander 398 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. McGath 370 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1985
- State v. McGath 370 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1985
- Weise v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Weise v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Craig 359 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Craig 359 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1984