Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cham, 680 N.W.2d 121.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(concluding that the defendant “suffered anxiety by having to appear again and again for a trial that never happened,” but that it “only slightly” weighed in the defendant’s favor), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Mathew Schillak Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Scott Mathew Schillak Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 32; (determining that, without bad faith by the state to delay the proceeding, a 23-month delay due to court congestion did not weigh against the state), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Cham , review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
25 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In determining whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, courts employ a four-factor balancing test, considering: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether and when the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004); see Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 517, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192 (1972).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(holding that 23 -month “unusually long” delay due to district court’s failure to find court interpret er weighed against speedy -trial violation because “the prosecution did not act in bad faith to delay the proceeding”), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When a defendant moves for dismissal, but does not move for a speedy trial, this factor will not favor the defendant.” State v. 16 Cham, review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Charles Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The four factors are: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether and when the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio 872 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The four factors are “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether and when the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004)).2 But when a party asks the district court to take an action that the party then alleges on appeal to be 1 Burnett assumes that sections 611.30 and 611.31 govern the provision of a closed- captioning system.
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004) (addressing the appointment of an interpreter).
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Jul.
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
5 (), review denied (Minn. Jul.
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Griffin 760 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Griffin 760 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“[W]e afford the district court broad discretion based on its first-hand view of indicators that a person is handicapped in communication, including: mispronunciations, pauses, facial expressions, and gestures.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jul.
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2004).