Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 772 N.W.2d 496.

112 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jon Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held t hat the right to an attorney “may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.”
State of Minnesota v. David Devon Bryant Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the right to an attorney “may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.” State v. Jones
State of Minnesota v. Dwight Lee Docken Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A defendant may relinquish this right by “(1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, [or] (3) forfeiture.”
State of Minnesota v. Christian Dulue Flah Minn. Ct. App. 2019
( recognizing that defendant waives right to counsel by “engag[ing] in dilatory tactics after he has been warned that he will lose his right to counsel”); (recognizing that “criminal defendant may not exploit the Confrontation Clause to bar the st
State of Minnesota v. Dana Dionte Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
However, “an exception exists when a criminal defendant makes the issue of witness credibility a central focus of his case.” aff’d, .
State of Minnesota v. Miyo Marchon-Montine Alexander Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But the right to counsel “may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.” State v. Jones , .
State of Minnesota v. Ismahan Mohamed Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Chaquetta Alicia Merie Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anayyha Nakashia Black Minn. Ct. App. 2018
fore accepting a signed waiver, t he district court must “fully advise the defendant by intense inquiry regarding the nature of the charges, the possible punishment, mitigating circumstances, and all facts essential to a broad understanding of the consequences of the waiver of the right to counsel, including the advantages and disadvantages of the decision to waive counsel.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Justin Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Hiram Abdul Langston Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Abimbola Bakare Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Harold Krueger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Oppel, 2013 WL 2923222, at *9 ().
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Robert Winsor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Robert Winsor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A defendant may relinquish the right by “(1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, [or] (3) forfeiture.”
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting the presumption under Minnesota law that the jury follows the district court’s instructions), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Though the right to counsel is a constitutional requirement, it may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.”
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
“Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right.” (Minn. 3 To be sure, we encourage litigants to use the procedure outlined in Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
testimony concerning” defendant’s “prior criminal acts, including an order for protection filed against him and a prior assault conviction”), aff’d
Ronald Hagle, et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ronald Hagle, et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 496, 505 (Minn. 2009); -67 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(adopting forfeiture doctrine for waiver of right to counsel).
State of Minnesota v. David Brian Triemert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Brian Triemert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Edward Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although D.P.’s statements were not against his penal interests, his statements were made against the interest of his safety and his fear of being labeled a “snitch.” aff’d, (holding that “statements do not have to be directly 11 against [that person’s] own penal interests”).
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“We will only overturn a finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.” () (quotation marks omitted).
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013