Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 266 N.W.2d 706.

67 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
D-6 medical personnel —demonstrating the severity of the harm to the victim or the lasting effect on the victim.3 3 See, 710 (Minn. 1978) (concluding “other serious bodily harm” occurred when victim testified she had ongoing numbness in teeth and treating physicians testified about injuries); - 06 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding “other serious bodily harm” occurred where “surgical scar remain
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moreover, “[w]hen a defendant has previously been represented by counsel, a district court ‘can reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it have been described to [the] defendant in detail.’” ().
Bradford Cain Dopkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Bradford Cain Dopkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shane Ryan Oneil Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shane Ryan Oneil Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver, the district court can “reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it [have] been described to defendant in detail by counsel.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to w aiver, a [district] court could ‘reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.’” Worthy, d at 276 (quoting State v. Jones , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver, a [district] court could ‘reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.’” Worthy, d at 276 ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ounsel on the waiver decision beyond ‘did [appellant] talk’ to counsel.” But “[w]hen a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver, a trial court could ‘reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.’” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Moreover, “[w]hen a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver, a trial court could ‘reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.’” Worthy, d at 276 (); (observing that Minnesota’s appellate courts have upheld waivers of counsel despite inadequate on-the-record inquires when defendants have had “either extensive contact with defense attorneys or stand-by counsel or both”).
A22-1093 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver, a [district] court could ‘reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.’” Worthy, d at 276 ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver, a [district] court could ‘reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.’” Worthy, d at 276 ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 276 (quoting State v. Jones , ); see also Thronblad , d at 263 (stating that it may be presumed that counsel representing a defendant at a waiver proceeding advised the 9 defendant so that he could make an informed decision even when the district court failed to adequately question the defendant on the record).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But the specific princip le stated in Worthy is: “When a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver , a trial court could ‘reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.’” d at 276 () (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[and] did not regain consciousness until the following day.” d 706, 710 (Minn. 1978).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.1 (Minn. 1978) (“[W]e strongly encourage trial courts to liberally use the authority provided in Rule [5.04], subd.
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that the following injuries constituted other serious bodily harm: loss of consciousness, numbness in her leg for several weeks, dizziness and headaches until just before trial, and numbness in her teeth at trial); (concluding th
State of Minnesota v. Scotty William Polchow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scotty William Polchow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 706, 710 (Minn. 1978) (concluding that a victim’s injuries constituted “other serious bodily harm” where she was found unconscious and on the verge of shock, did not regain consciousness until the next day, and remained hospitalized for a week).
State of Minnesota v. Earl Anthony Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Earl Anthony Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Arguably, 7 great bodily harm is inflicted if one knocks someone out briefly.” (quotation omitted)); (concluding that sufficient evidence existed to find that the victim suffered great bodily harm when she was found unconscious, on the verge of shock, lost consciousness for a day, was hospitalized for a week, and almost suffered a miscarriage).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Arguably, ‘great bodily harm’ is inflicted if one knocks someone out briefly.”); (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to justify finding that the victim suffered great bodily harm when she was found unconscious and on the verge of shock, did not regain consciousness for a day, was hospitalized for a week, and almost suffered a miscarriage).
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
(holding that defendants’ waiver of their right to counsel was voluntarily made, in part, because they were able to consult with counsel before they made the decision); (finding that waiver of right to counsel was voluntary, because court could presume public defender had described “the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it” to defendant); see also Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647 , 96 S.Ct.
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1995) (“A state of unconsciousness verging on shock has been held to satisfy the higher standard of ‘great bodily harm.’ ”) ( (rejecting Jones’s argument that insufficient evidence justified finding that victim suffered great bodily harm when victim was found “unconscious and on the verge of shock,” “did not regain consciousness until the following day,” “remained hospitalized for a week,” about two weeks after the attack al
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
When a defendant has previously been represented by counsel, a district court “[can] reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it [have] been described to defendant in detail.”
State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
-44 (Minn.2006); Worthy, d at 276
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
711 n. 1 (Minn.1978) (encouraging district courts to “liberally use the authority provided in” rule 5.02).
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Larkin 620 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Larkin 620 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In State v. Stafford, the supreme court stated, “Arguably, ‘great bodily harm’ is inflicted if one knocks someone out brief *337 ly.” 1 ().
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
When a defendant has consulted with an attorney prior to waiver, a trial court could “reasonably presume that the benefits of legal assistance and the risks of proceeding without it had been described to defendant in detail by counsel.”
State v. Gorman 532 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Gorman 532 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
A state of unconsciousness verging on shock has been held to satisfy the higher standard of “great bodily harm.”
State v. Barner 510 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1993
State v. Barner 510 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1993
8, defines “great bodily harm” as “bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.” Relevant decisions of this court include: State v. Peters, 274 Minn. 309
State v. Krejci 458 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1990
State v. Krejci 458 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1990
State v. Richards 456 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1990
State v. Richards 456 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1990
E.g., State v. Bauer, 310 Minn. 103, 122-26 , -61 (1976) (adopting ABA Standards); -12 (1978).