Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. State, 682 N.W.2d 162.

23 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(impartial judge and finder of fact); -68 (Minn. 2004) (judge communicating with jury outside defendant’s presence); (denial of the defendant’s peremptory challenge); (improper closure of the courtroom violating right to public trial); State v. Richa
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
see also Sessions, d at 756 (“Even if a defendant is wrongfully denied the right to be present at every stage of trial, a new trial is warranted only if the error was not harmless.”).
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
See Brown v. State , State v. Mims
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In reviewing “the denial of a defendant’s right to be present for all communications with the jury,” appellate courts apply a harmless-error analysi s. Brown v. State , see also Sessions , d at 756 (“Even if a defendant is wrongfully denied the right to be present at every stage of trial, a new trial is warranted only if the error was not harmless.”).
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–67 (Minn. 2004) (deciding that record lacked any indication that defendant personally waived right to be present or consented to waiver by his attorney).
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
In State v. Mims, we said “that in any criminal case any communication relating to the case occurring during a judge’s uninvited entry into the jury room during deliberations and in the absence of defendant and counsel constitutes reversible error.” 306 Minn. 159, 165 , -68 (Minn.2004) (applying the “strict rule” from Mims).
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
State v. Everson 749 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2008
We reached a -68 (2004).
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
E.g., Mckenzie, d at 904-06 ; -68 (Minn.2004); Mckenzie, d at 583-84 .
State v. Brown 739 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2007
State v. Brown 739 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2007
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
1(2)(a); and the right to be present at trial, Minn. R.Crim.