Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Spaulding, 296 N.W.2d 870.

80 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
to support this argument.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We 1 , 878 (Minn. 1980), to argue that it is improper for a court to determine that the jury will not review certain evidence.
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The burden is on the state to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, once the defense is raised.” d 870, 875 (Minn. 1980).
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Defendant’s first conviction, which was set aside on appeal, was never a final conviction under the statute so as to bar the State’s prosecution of the other offenses arising out of the same conduct.”); (“An acquittal of an offense bars r
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
we rejected an argument similar to the one Castillo-Alvarez advocates.
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Our supreme court has held that, if a defendant’s conviction is set aside on appeal, it is “never a final conviction under [section 609.035] so as to bar the State’s prosecution of the other offenses arising out of the same conduct.”
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
(noting that effect of district court’s blanket refusal to allow jury to review testimony “force[d] the jury to decide the case on the basis of sketchy memory of the evidence”).
Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(concluding trial court’s refusal to reread defendant’s testimony at jury’s request was prejudicial error in close case).
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of W.A.H. 642 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of W.A.H. 642 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Sater 588 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Sater 588 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(when initial conviction is set aside on appeal, section 609.035 does not bar retrial of other charges arising from same conduct); (section 609.035 does not, on dismissal of one charge, bar prosecution of other pending charges arising from same conduct); S
State v. Lane 582 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1998
State v. Smith 582 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1998
State v. Smith 582 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1998
In Spaulding, this court held that the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury before deliberations that no testimony- would be read back to them and by flatly rejecting its request to have the defendant’s testimony read, although the jury described itself as “deadlocked.” -78 (Minn.1980).
State v. Lane 582 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1998
In State v. Spaulding, the trial court instructed the jury that no testimony would be read, but after more than nine hours of deliberation, the jury nonetheless sent a note to the court stating that it was “deadlocked in disagreement * * * [over] the testimony of the defendant.”
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
(refusing to impose a presumption of vindictiveness where the state added new and distinct counts to the complaint after the first trial ended in a mistrial, opting instead to apply a standard of “vindictiveness in fact”); (refusing to impose a presumption of vindictiveness, and holding the state may constitutionally reinstate charges that were dismissed in a plea agreement if the defendant successfully challenges his conviction on appeal).
State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(section 609.035 does not apply where conviction set aside on appeal); (section 609.035 does not apply where charge dismissed before trial); State v. Gaulke, 281 Minn. 327, 329 , (section 609.035 does not apply where case dismiss
State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
However, even if there was no objection, appeal may be allowed if the court’s response “abused its discretion to the defendant’s prejudice.”
State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
We do not agree that this is a “close case.”
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Angulo 471 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Where the prosecuto-rial misconduct is not “unusually serious,” this court determines “whether the prosecutor erred and, if so, whether [that] misconduct played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.” (citation omitted).
State v. Kraushaar 459 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Kraushaar 459 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(court abused its discretion, to defendant’s prejudice, by stating no testimony would be reread).
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989