Cited by

at 664 n.4 (citing State v. Lindsey , - 64 (Minn. 2001)).

-64 (Minn. 2001) (concluding district court acted within its discretion when it stated it considered defendant’s ability to pay and ordered 4 We acknowledge that the district court’s written order following the contested restitution hearing concerning Schmalzriedt’s ability to pay did not include any written

(“Because an appellate court cannot glean from a transcript the atmosphere or particular threats to order and decorum in the courtroom, [district] courts are vested with broad discretion in deciding matters of courtroom procedure.”).

(“The legislature has the power to declare what acts are criminal and to establish the punishment for those acts as part of the substantive law.”).

-64 (Minn. 2001); , 227-28 (Minn. App. 2018) , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

The state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970)), including the identity of the person who committed the offense

19 White relies on State v. Lindsey, in which the supreme court upheld a restitution award for “several of the murder victim’s funeral expenses, including the cost of funeral clothes, postage stamps for thank-you cards, a hotel room for a relative and reception, the cost of hiring a soloist, a limousine service, and other miscellaneous items.” d 652, 664 (Minn. 2001).

We have stated that the right to a public trial is “for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions.” (emphasis added) (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984)).

at 664 n.4 (–64 (Minn. 2001)).

-64 (Minn. 2001) (affirming a portion of a restitution order that required an indigent defendant’s prison wages be applied to restitution).

District courts “are vested with broad discretion in deciding matters of courtroom procedure.”

Comm’rs, and that the district court is ultimately responsi ble for managing the courtroom during trials, see State v. Lindsey , (emphasizing the “grave responsibility” district courts have in overseeing and regulating courtroom conduct and procedure during trials).

(noting that “the postconviction court, which was also the trial court, specifically stated that it ‘considered the petitioner’s ability to pay when it ordered restitution to be paid from prison earnings’ ”).

at 552 (-21 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that removing the victim’s brother, who was on the witness list, from the courtroom was not a true closure); Brown, d at 617-18 (concluding that lo cking the courtroom doors during jury instructions was not a true closure); State v. Lindsey , -61 (Minn. 2001) (concluding that removing two minor children was not a true closure); -62 (Minn. App. 2013) (c oncluding that closures for administrative proceedings typically held in chambers but conducted in the court

State v. Tenerelli , aff’d

See State v. Lindsey , (affirming summary denial of postco nviction ineffective-a ssistance-of-counsel claim because the claim was not ripe).

State v. Silvernail , State v. Lindsey , -61 (Minn. 2001).

d 652, 664 (Minn. 2001).

at 11-12 (distinguishing State v. Lindsey , ).

State v. Lindsey , -62 (Minn. 2001).

review denied (Minn. Apr.

See, e.g., State v. Lindsey , d 652, 663−64 (Minn. 2001) (explaining that district court considered defendant’s ability to pay when it ordered restitution to be paid from prison earnings); State v. Tenerelli , (“Since the statute is not explicit as to how the court must consider the appellant’s ability to pay, the co

The Minnesota Legislature is responsible for determining “matters of substantive law,” while the Minnesota Supreme Court is responsible for “the regulation of evidentiary matters and matters of trial and appellate procedure.” (quotation and citation omitted).

The judicial branch governs procedural matters, while the creation of substantive law is a legislative function.” (“This court has ‘primary responsibility under the separation of powers doctrine for .

The right to a public trial is ‘“for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see [the defendant] is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and the importance of their functions.’ ” (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 46 , 104 S.Ct.

Silvernail, d at 601 (-61 (Minn. 2001)).

The public trial right is “ ‘for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions.’ ” (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 , 104 S.Ct.

Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, .045 (containing no provision requiring the court to issue findings regarding a defendant’s financial situation); -64 (Minn. 2001) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering an indigent prison inmate to pay $32,682.93 in restitution).

Instead, the Minnesota Supreme Court has explained that the admission of statements made by an officer during a police interrogation are necessary to provide context to the defendant’s statements and that juries will understand that those statements are made to “get as much information from [the defendant] as possible.” –63 (Minn. 2001); d at 835–36.