Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite A.C. Ford v. State, 690 N.W.2d 706.

95 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Our supreme court has held that “when a judge communicates in writing with the jury about a housekeeping matter, the defendant’s right to be present at trial is not violated.”
State v. McKinney 840 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McKinney 840 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
-37 (Minn.2010); , 711 n. 4 (Minn.2005); (electing not to decide whether the petitioner’s claims were Knaffla barred because they failed on the merits).
State v. Spangler 816 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Spangler 816 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A. Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure “The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Burdick 795 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Burdick 795 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
ANALYSIS I. Construction of a rule of “criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
Additionally, because postconviction courts treat motions to amend after postconviction relief has been denied as new petitions for postconviction relief, , 666 n.2 (Minn.2008), the postconviction court did not err when it treated appellant’s motion to amend as a second postconviction petition, and concluded that appellant’s new claims were Knaffla-barred.
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
Ford v. State (Ford II), , 708 n. 1 (Minn.2005).
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 744 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2008
State v. Johnson 744 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
(“[T]ime requirements for the filing of an appeal are jurisdictional.”).
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
This court has stated that “a trial judge should have no communication with the jury after deliberations begin unless that communication is in open court and defendant is present.”
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
“Thus, the general rule in Minnesota is that a trial judge should have no communication with the jury after deliberations begin unless that communication is in open court and defendant is present.”