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. Grey, 256 N.W.2d 74.

31 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Criminal defendants have a due process “right to be present at all critical stages of trial.” (quotation omitted) ; (holding that a criminal defendant’ s right to be present applied to a pretrial suppression hearing).
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    (“The trial court, erroneously relying on State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 11 which dealt with the issue of probable cause to support a complaint, ruled that [for a suppression hearing] the state could rely on the transcript without calling the witnesses.”); (holding a defendant has a right to be present and confront witnesses at a pretrial suppression hearing).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    But the right to be present cannot be “easily waived.”
  • State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
  • Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Here, the district court considered evidence other than that presented to the grand jury, reasoning that to rely solely on the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings would violate Ei-bensteiner’s Sixth Amendment right to be present and confront the witnesses against him at a pretrial suppression hearing.
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
  • McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
    (stating that trial court was justified in giving a no-adverse-inference instruction because defense counsel’s closing argument opened the door to it); (dictum) (stating that trial courts should not comment on a defendant’s decision not to testify unless the absence of a precautionary instruction would result in a manifest injustice); cf. Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 340-41 , 98 S.Ct.
  • State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
    2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) (distinguishing competency hearing as a “pretrial proceeding” and therefore not a stage of trial is not helpful as it does not take into account the hearing’s direct impact on the trial); -77 (Minn.1977) (a pretrial suppression hearing is a stage of trial); State v. Staveneau, 158 Minn. 329, 330-31 , 197 N.W.
  • State v. Cassidy 567 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cassidy 567 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Holmes 374 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Holmes 374 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    does not compel a different result here.
  • State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Bouwman 354 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
  • Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Terrell 283 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Terrell 283 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1979
    The state, (holding that a defendant has a right to be present and confront witnesses at a pretrial suppression hearing), now apparently concedes that the prosecutor should have called witnesses on the suppression issue, but contends that in this case defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s f
  • State v. Bryant 281 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Bryant 281 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Hull 269 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Hull 269 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1978
    1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969)