DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652.

105 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
    -65 (Minn.2014) (concluding that the State did not meet its burden of establishing the amount of damage the defendant caused to the victim’s car); -64 (Minn.2001) (concluding that the restitution amount imposed by the district court was not an abuse of discretion in light of the defendant’s ability to pay); (concluding that the district court was within its discretion by ordering restitution for the cost of
  • State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Joseph Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Joseph Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 3.19 (2006); (quoting this language with approval).
  • State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (explaining that the district court considered the defendant’s ability to pay when it ordered restitution to be 1 See Minn. Stat. § 609.115.
  • State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
    However, some courtroom closures are “too trivial to amount to a violation of the [Sixth] Amendment.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Dalbec 800 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Dalbec 800 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 2011
    (stating that defendant's claim that counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived him of his right to appellate review of his conviction was not ripe because the defendant did not assert "that he has ever attempted to file a direct appeal”).
  • State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    for the proposition that Infante’s right to a public trial was not violated because the “court’s action was not a true closure, in the sense of excluding all or even a significant portion of the public from the trial.” But since Lindsey , the supreme court reaffirmed in Mahkuk that the full four-part Wall
  • State v. Cross 771 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Cross 771 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Id.; see also Fageroos, d at 203 (remanding for evidentiary hearing and Waller analysis to determine propriety of closing courtroom during testimony of minor complainant and her minor sister); (affirming exclusion of two unaccompanied minors, without Waller analysis, because exclusion was “not a true closure, in the sense of excluding all or even a significant portion of the public”).
  • State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
    -59 (Minn.2001) (concluding that a statute barring minors from criminal trials “has nothing to do with defining crimes or prescribing punishments”).
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
    “This court has ‘primary responsibility under the separation of powers doctrine for the regulation of evidentiary matters and matters of trial and appellate procedure.’ ” ().
  • State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
  • Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
    “Because an appellate court cannot glean from a transcript the atmosphere or particular threats to order and decorum in the courtroom, trial courts are vested with broad discretion in deciding matters of courtroom procedure.”
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of J.R. 655 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of J.R. 655 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
    Nevertheless, as we have said in a number of cases, we have " ‘primary responsibility under the separation of powers doctrine for the regulation of evi-dentiary matters and matters of trial and appellate procedure.’ ” (quoting Olson, d at 215 ).