Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thompson, 430 N.W.2d 151.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[A] trial judge ordinarily should obtain a criminal defendant’s permission before giving CRIMJIG 3.17, which instructs the jury not to draw any adverse inference from the defendant’s decision not to testify.” (footnote omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(finding the defendant did not meet his burden that the instruction had a significa nt effect on the jury because of the totality of evidence against him); Darris, d at 2 40 (finding the error not prejudicial); State v. Thompson , (upholding conviction because defendant was not entitled to a new tri al based on the error); State v. Rosen , (affirming conviction despite error in light of the evidence in the record).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Gomez, d at 880; -41 (Minn. 2002); State v. Rosen, 280 Minn. 550, 550-51
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
For this argument, but that case does not support his position or his request for a new trial.
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Folland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Folland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 151, 153 (Minn. 1988).
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
For example; the rule applies to a pre-trial suppression hearing, Grey, d at 76-77 ; to a pre-trial hearing to determine whether a defendant threatened a witness, -88 (Minn.1998); to an in-chambers hearing to *166 determine the competency of a child witness, and to a post-verdict hearing to investigate a bailiffs contact with jurors during deliberations
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
(holding that it was error to give the instruction without getting the defendant’s ).
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
153 & n. 3 (Minn.1988); see Minn.Stat.
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-53 (Minn.1988), the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a court of appeals holding that a trial court did not commit reversible error by excluding a criminal defendant from a hearing to determine the competency of a child who was about to testify against the defendant.
State v. Keeton 589 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1998
State v. Keeton 589 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1998
1482 , 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985)
State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
the right to be present under the rule is broader than the right to be present under the Federal Constitution.
State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the supreme court stated that the exclusion of a defendant from the competency hearing of a child witness does not violate the confrontation clause or due process clause of the federal constitution.