Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844.

143 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Andrew Gerald Bloom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A district court’s violation of that right “is considered a structural error,” requiring “automatic reversal of a conviction.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Jay Sullivan Minn. 2026
In response, –53 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Hussein Ibrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-53 (Minn. 2011) (applying the plain-error standard to a failure to obtain a waiver of a right to a jury trial).
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Only a small 4 number of errors have been found to be structural errors.”
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Structural errors are defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by harmless-error standards.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Andre Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ernest Marshall Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Javier Diaz Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7 “Generally, most constitutional errors are reviewed for harmless error.”
State of Minnesota v. John Arland Kirst Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The state “must prove each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Alicia Marie Neely Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Jay Sullivan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-52 (Minn. 2011) (holding that district court’s “failure to obtain [the defendant’s] personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the previous-conviction elements of the charged offenses” was trial error subject to harmless-error review).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Frederick Gratz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Olok Lero Olok Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Pariss Demond Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Cha NMN Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Cage Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Salat Issa Salat v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Steven Edward Hansmann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[A] prior conviction is an element which the state must prove at trial and which defendant has a right to have a jury decide.” (quotation omitted ); WL 668011, at *3 (Minn. App. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Alfonso Terrell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that appellate courts may consider an unobjected-to error that affects a criminal defendant’s substantial rights under plain-error analysis).
Omar Kwabena Walford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Levell Darrell Booth Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Wrongful denial of a defendant’s right to self-representation is one of “a very limited class of errors, referred to as structural errors, that require automatic reversal of a conviction.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Antonio Banegas Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, vs Tyrone Demetrius Boswell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether a criminal defendant has been denied the right to a jury trial is a constitutional question that we review de novo.” d 844, 848-49 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
“Generally, most constitutional errors are reviewed for harmless error.”
Minn. 2021
(explaining that if the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights, we need 4 One way to accurately state the law in a jury instruction without using the dicta from State v. Lowe, 68 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Willie III Wair Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-49 (Minn. 2011) (stating that denial of jury trial right s raises a constitutional question that is reviewed de novo).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jonnell Gilbert Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A defendant’s right to a jury trial includes “the right to a jury determination that [he] is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kuhlmann , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Chrystopher Murdock Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 844, 848 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Leticia Rene Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Brian Joseph Andvik Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Vinson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Structural errors are defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by harmless-error standards.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua James Dennison Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Eric Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Generally, most constitutional errors are reviewed for harmless error.”
State of Minnesota v. Leontaye A. Slaughter-McCaskel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Natausha Rae Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
See State v. Kuhlmann , (stating that structural errors require automatic reversal of a conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy William Kohler Minn. Ct. App. 2020
While the adequacy of jury instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, “[w]hether a criminal defendant has been denied the right to a jury trial is a constitutional question that we review de novo.” -49 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Cole Simmons Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Edward Gary Kowalzyk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Bradly James Haddock Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kerrell Levell Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Thomas Rewitzer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joshua Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Dana Dionte Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Kuhlmann , -53 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. David Allen Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2019