Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stewart, 276 N.W.2d 51.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(citing the particular -person exclusion to reject an argument for instructions on depraved-mind murder); (same); –18 (Minn. 1980) (same); (same); (same); (same); (sam
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Furthermore, “(1) restraints should not be ordered unless eminently necessary, and (2) once this necessity has been shown, only those restraints which are reasonable and least coercive under the circumstances should be imposed.”
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
The postconviction court concluded that the evidence did not “rationally support a finding that [Stiles] acted in a manner that was eminently dangerous to more than one person as required by this statute.” The court analogized Stiles’ and noted that Stiles had an intended victim, whereas third-degree murder is generally used when no specific individual is singled out.
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
In recognition of the inherent prejudice that occurs when a defendant is restrained in a courtroom, we have stated that “[s]hackling * * * should be virtually a matter of last resort.”
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
n. 5 (Minn.1979) (citing State v. Tolley, 290 N.C.
McKenzie v. State 583 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
McKenzie v. State 583 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
See, State v. Rasmussen, 268 Minn. 42, 44-46 , -91 , cert.
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
State v. Widell 530 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Widell 530 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Lehman 511 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1994
State v. Lehman 511 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1994
we considered in depth the issue of restraining a defendant during trial.
State v. Lehman 508 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lehman 508 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(use of restraints should be matter of last resort); see State v. Jones, 311 Minn. 176 , (shackling should be avoided except in exceptional circumstances).
State v. Patterson 493 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Patterson 493 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(where a defendant puts his character in issue, state may offer rebuttal evidence indicating defendant’s poor character).
State v. Lefthand 488 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1992
State v. Lefthand 488 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1992
As for the use of restraints, and were observed by the trial court.
State v. Hogetvedt 488 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hogetvedt 488 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The Minnesota Supreme Court has strongly discouraged the use of restraints during trial and has stated they should be “virtually a matter of last resort.” see also State v. Jones, 311 Minn. 176,179 , (shackling is to be avoided except in “exceptional circumstances”).
State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Supreme Court has indicated that restraints *69 are a matter of “last resort.”
State v. Petersen 368 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Petersen 368 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(trial court’s inappropriate remarks had no adverse effect on prospective jurors and did not infringe upon defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury).
State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984
State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984
State v. Aguilar 352 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1984
State v. Aguilar 352 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1984
As in the case of physical restraint of a defendant, a subject which we have addressed in a number of cases, the trial court should take a particular course of action only if it is reasonably necessary and should do everything possible to minimize the danger of prejudice and avoid creating an atmosphere inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.
State v. Phelps 328 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1982
State v. Phelps 328 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1982
State v. Scott 323 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1982
State v. Scott 323 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1982
Concerning the relevance of this and other factors in deciding whether or not to restrain a defendant at trial, where we discussed the issue of shackling in depth.
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
Recently, we held that the trial court properly refused to submit to the jury the lesser included offense of third-degree murder where the victim was shot twice, there were no bullets fired at anything or anyone else, and no other person in the vicinity of the shooting was concerned for his safety.