DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

  • State v. Rean 421 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Rean 421 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1988
    eversing an award of new trial by court of appeals; dealing with issues of failure to object and of whether error in denying or granting a jury request is prejudicial); (analyzing in detail what is the scope of the trial court’s considerable discretion in handling such requests and also analyzing issue of when error is prejudicial); (the rare “close case” where trial court’s refusal to reread testimony was so prejudicial and so plainly erroneous under the circumstances that defendant’s failure t
  • State v. Rean 416 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Rean 416 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518, 522-23 , -43 (1968).
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
    In light of all the other evidence admitted, the introduction of the victim’s photo in this case was “unlikely to have played a substantial part in influencing the jury’s verdict.”
  • State v. McMorris 373 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1985
  • State v. McMorris 373 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1985
    which is the case on which the Court of Appeals based its reversal, we overlooked the defense counsel’s failure to object, but that was because the case was “a close case” involving a request for the rereading of the defendant’s testimony by a jury that said it was deadlocked.
  • State v. McMorris 367 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. McMorris 367 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    the trial court had said at the outset of deliberations that no testimony would be read to the jury, thereby totally failing to exercise its discretion.
  • State v. Williams 361 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Williams 361 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sanders 355 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Sanders 355 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • King v. State 353 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
    State v. Prettyman, 293 Minn. 493, 495
  • State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983
    this court stated, “[wjhether or not to grant a jury’s request for a reading of trial testimony is within the discretion of the trial court.” Id, at 878.
  • State v. Ming Sen Shiue 326 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Ming Sen Shiue 326 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kinyon 302 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Kinyon 302 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1981