Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pietraszewski, 283 N.W.2d 887.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, e.g., Ross, d at 654 (holding that the defendant’s jury- trial waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, in part, because of his prior convictions); (holding that the defendant’s jury-trial waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, in part, because of his prior contacts with the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Pariss Demond Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(per curiam) 9 (holding that defendant validly waived jury in part because district court “commented on his ability to express himself and participate in the proceedings”).
Salat Issa Salat v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, vs Tyrone Demetrius Boswell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that a waiver was valid when the district court merely asked: “your counsel tells me that you were willing and in fact preferred to waive a jury for the purpose of this Trial, but I want to confirm that for the rec ord at this time”).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Lee Wachter Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see also State v. Pietraszewski , (“A commitment because of ment al illness is not a determination that a defendant is legally incompetent.”).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua James Dennison Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(concluding that there was sufficient evidence in the “entire record” for the district court to determine a waiver wa s voluntarily and inte lligently waived).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jon Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2020
While the district court could have ques tioned Urban more thoroughly about his understanding of a jury trial, we conclude that there is “su fficient evidence in the entire record from which the [district] court could have determined that [the] defendant’s waiver 16 was voluntarily and in telligently made.” State v. Pietraszewski , (finding that a one-sentence colloquy was sufficient where the trial court had “numerous contacts” with the defendant prior to trial).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Thomas Rewitzer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kerrell Levell Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Pietraszewski , (explaining that the district court should have questioned the defendant more thoroughly to determine whether he had conferred with his attorney about the 13 consequences of a waiver, but the failure to do so did not require reversal).
State of Minnesota v. Duane Griffin Gauna Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But, as the supreme court has explained, in the context of an undisclosed expert witness, “[i]f defendant was i ndeed surprised or prejudiced, the proper response would have been to move for a c ontinuance.” (footnote omitted); (noting that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding tes timony and identifying defendant ’s failure to request a continuance a relevant consideration).
State of Minnesota v. Quincy Darnell Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“In the instant case there is no evidence that [the witness] had any involvement with the crime before he hid the gun and ammunition.
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. La’Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La’Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“In the instant case there is no evidence that Hess had any involvement with the crime before he hid the gun and ammunition.
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970); -90 (Minn.1979) (citing Minn. R.Crim.
Aziz v. Fabian 791 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Aziz v. Fabian 791 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(holding prison search can be conducted without warrant and without probable cause when it is necessary to maintain security); (holding that prison inmate had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell).
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); see also Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
In fact, we have said that the advisory by the court must be accompanied by “searching questions” to be satisfied that “the defendant was informed of his rights and that the waiver was voluntary.” (quoting State v. Piet- *443 raszexuski, ).
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tlapa 642 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Tlapa 642 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
“As we view the rule, strict compliance is required in order to assure that the waiver is voluntarily and intelligently made.” Sandmoen, d at 423 -24 (-90 (Minn.1979)).
State v. Ross 472 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1991
State v. Ross 472 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1991
State v. Krejci 458 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1990
State v. Krejci 458 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1990
-90 (Minn.1979) (citation omitted).
State v. Krejci 441 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Krejci 441 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-90 (Minn.1979) (per curiam).
Wedan v. State 409 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wedan v. State 409 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sandmoen 390 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sandmoen 390 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
*424 889-90 (Minn.1979).
State v. Johnson 354 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Johnson 354 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(citing, Gaulke v. State, 289 Minn. 354 , ).
Matter of Martenies 350 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Martenies 350 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lausche v. Commissioner of Public Welfare, 302 Minn. 65
State v. Lindsey 284 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by