Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Everson, 749 N.W.2d 340.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
(holding that an alleged error in the jury process “without even any allegation of misconduct .
Devon James Pulczinski, Minn. 2022
A verdict may be impeached by testimony establishing that a juror (Minn. 1968); (2) that we assess whether we have discretion to grant relief for all categories of unpreserved errors (invited errors, consented -to errors, and unobjected-to errors) under the plain error doctrine, –49 (Minn. 2008); ; State v. Goelz , State v. Giese , ; and (3) that we may grant relief for invited errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial pro
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that structural errors “call into question the very accuracy and reliability of the trial process ” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Denial of the Schwartz Hearing A Schwartz hearing is “a procedure for inquiring into jury conduct that may have prevented a fair trial.” State v. Everson , (citing Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. , 258 Minn. 325, ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Eric Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Mendoza Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Conversely, wherein the supreme court declined to apply the strict rule of Mims.
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
Although structural errors typically require automatic reversal; the remedy for denying a defendant’s right to a public trial “should be appropriate to the violation, and a retrial is hot required if a remand will remedy the violation.” see Waller.v.
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
we will not overturn it absent an abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A defendant need not timely object to preserve a structural error for appeal; instead, structural errors “require automatic reversal because such errors call into question the very accuracy and reliability of the trial process.” (quotation *60 omitted).
State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
he defendant’s absence was not structural error); (holding that correcting jury instructions while the district court was reading the instructions to the jury was not structural error); , 302 n. 4 (Minn.2008) (noting that the denial of the right to peremptorily remove a judge is not structural error); (allowing employee from the county attorney’s office to be present while the jury reviewed recorded a statement during jury deliberations was not structural error).
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The defendant need not timely object to preserve a structural error for appeal; instead, structural errors generally “require automatic reversal because such errors call into question the very accuracy and reliability of the trial process.” -48 (Minn.2008) (quotations omitted).
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, -49 (Minn.2008) (“The invited error doctrine does not apply, however, if an error meets all four parts of the plain error test.”); (same).
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009