DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Smith, 299 N.W.2d 504.

37 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. C. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    In State v. Smith , the supreme court held that when the record is silent as to the waiver of the right to testify, the reviewin g court “must presume that the decision not to testify was made by [the] defendant volunta rily and intelligently.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “Without anything in the record suggesting otherwise,” an appellate court “must presume that the decision not to testify was made by [the] defendant voluntarily and intelligently.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    This statute “bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a si ngle behavioral incident.” State v. Jackson , see also State v. Smith , (noting that Minn. Stat. § 609.04 prevents “convicting a defendant twice for the same offense (or of one offense and a necessarily included offense) on the basis of the same act” (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    on the basis of the same act.” (same).
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael David Kochevar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (d 504, 506 (Minn. 1980)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “Absent a finding to the contrary, [appellate courts] presume that the defendant waived the right to testify for the reasons stated on the record.” Id.; (“Without anything in the record suggesting otherwise, we must presume that the decision not to testify was made by defendant voluntarily and intelligently.”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “Absent a finding to the contrary, [appellate courts] presume that the defendant waived the right to testify for the reasons stated on the record.” Id.; (“Without anything in the record suggesting otherwise, we must presume that the decision not to testify was made by defendant voluntarily and intelligently.”) Philip Carlson argues that the state “filed a second case of attempted theft by swindle against [him] days before trial as a virtua
  • State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “When the trial court record is silent as to waiver, this court ‘must presume that the decision not to testify was made by defendant 8 voluntarily and intelligently.’” ().
  • State v. Jeffries 806 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
  • In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    But when the record is silent as to the waiver of the right to testify, the reviewing court “must presume that the decision not to testify was made by defendant voluntarily and intelligently.”
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    voluntarily and intelligently.”
  • Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    See State v. McLaughlin, 250 Minn. 809 , 319, 323-24, -72, 674 (1957) (holding that when there is sufficient evidence of flight court may give a qualified instruction allowing inference of guilty); (holding that defendant waived issue by failing to object but noting disagreement of courts and commentators on issue).
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
    United States v. Bemloehr, 833 F.2d 749,751 (8th Cir.1987) (stating that “the defendant’s waiver of his right to testify, like his waiver of other constitutional rights, should be made voluntarily and knowingly”); (stating that defendant’s waiver of his right to testify was given “voluntarily and intelligently”).
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
    Cf., (fact record on direct appeal does not show personal waiver by defendant of right to testify does not establish that the defendant was denied right to testify or failed to waive the right; "without anything in the record suggesting otherwise we must presume that the decision not to testify was made by
  • Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Scott v. State 390 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • Smith v. State 317 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1982
  • Smith v. State 317 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1982
    but vacated one of the two convictions pursuant to section 609.04, which forbids twice convicting a defendant of the same crime (or of a crime and a lesser-included offense) where both crimes were committed in a single behavioral incident.
  • State v. Dent 308 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Dent 308 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1981