Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Galvan, 532 N.W.2d 210.

18 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(citing State v. McKenzie , n. 12 (Minn. 1995); Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason James Loveless, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 210,210 (Minn. 1995) (per curiam).
State v. Smith 901 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(recognizing that the required mens rea for accomplice liability may occur “at or before the commission of the crime”).
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
(affirming conviction in the Bowles murder case); (affirming conviction for murder of a witness); (affirming conviction for Bowles); (same).
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-51 (Minn.1998); (Flournoy II); (Flournoy I); Bowles, d at 525 .
McKenzie v. State 713 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2006
McKenzie v. State 707 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2005
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
The rights that we have allowed defendants to waive are rights personal to the defendant and include a waiver of Miranda rights, the right to counsel, State v. Blom,, the right to a jury trial, -18 (1995), Minn. R.Crim.
McKenzie v. State 670 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 2003
State v. Glowacki 630 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2001
In such situations, despite a defendant’s failure to object to a jury instruction at trial, “if the instruction contains an error of fundamental law or a controlling principle, a motion for a new trial adequately preserves the issue for appeal.” , 222 n. 12 (Minn.1995); Minn. R.Crim.
Flournoy v. State 583 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1998
— affirming the use of anonymous juries in the trial of two of the Haaf murder defendants — we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by impaneling an anonymous jury for Flournoy’s trial.
McKenzie v. State 583 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
18(3) (“An error in the instructions with respect to fundamental law or controlling principle may be assigned in a motion for a new trial though it was not otherwise called to the attention of the court.”); , 222 n. 12 (Minn.1995)
State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(citation omitted), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct.
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
Finally, and in this case approving of the use of anonymous juries, we further request the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure to propose a change to the criminal and jury management rules that presently exist in accordance with these decisions.
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
Nonetheless, subsequent cases refer to the statute as "aiding and abetting.” See, e.g., State v, Lucas
State v. Flournoy 535 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1995
this court addressed the concern that jury anonymity could lead jurors to infer guilt and, as a result, place a burden on the presumption of innocence.