Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Knoll, 739 N.W.2d 919.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
15 -22 (Minn. App. 2007) () (stating that rule 26.01, subdivision 4, provides procedure for what are known as “Lothenbach trials”).
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4, in absence of represented defendant’s valid waiver of right to require favorable witnesses to testify for defense, without discussing prejudicial impact of faulty waiver); –22 (Minn. App. 2007) (reversing conviction that resulted from Lothenbach proceeding, in absence of represented defendant’s valid waiver of rights to testify, confront witnesses against him, and subpoena favorable witnesses, without discussing prejudicial impact of faulty waiver); d
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Lopp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Lopp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 (Minn. App. 2007) (explaining that procedure set forth in Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pratt’s waiver of trial rights Pratt next appears to argue that his waiver of trial rights under rule 26.01, subdivision 3, was inadequate.3 “When a defendant waives a jury trial or agrees to a trial on stipulated facts, the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the defendant make an express waiver of specified trial rights.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d remanding for either compliance with the waiver requirement or any other proceeding consistent with the rules of criminal procedure); (holding that a party who argues successfully on appeal that his right to a jury trial was not waived may not obtain appellate review of a pretrial suppression ruling under Lothenbach); (holding that, under the Lothenbach procedure, a defendant must expressly waive all the Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“This procedure allows a defendant to appeal a pretrial issue when the material facts are not disputed.”
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When a defendant waives a jury trial or agrees to a trial on stipulated facts, the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the defendant make an express waiver of specified trial rights.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
a new trial is necessary.”); (holding that a defendant who agrees to a Lothenbach trial under rule 26.01, subdivision 4, must expressly waive the fundamental rights listed in subdivision 3, and failure to do so requires reversal).
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
2009); Halseth, d at 787 ; review denied (Minn. June 18, 2004); Sandmoen, d at 423 .
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-22 (Minn.App.2007) (reversing and remanding a conviction where record did not reflect waiver of rights as required by Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
2 -22 (Minn.App.2007) (determining that reversal is required when record of Lothenbach procedure fails to include specific waiver *123 by defendant of rights to testify at trial, to confront witnesses against him, and to subpoena favorable witnesses).
State v. Rasmussen 749 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rasmussen 749 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2008