DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Richards, 552 N.W.2d 197.

79 citing documents.

  • State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
    The role of advisory counsel is “fundamentally different from the role of counsel generally.”
  • State v. Robinson 718 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Hanke 712 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Hanke 712 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Private communication about a case between a court official, such as a bailiff, and the jury is improper and “presumptively prejudicial.” (stating that court officials’ “[p]rivate communications with a juror sitting on a criminal case about the pending matter are presumptively prejudicial”); Cox, d at 558 (bailiffs statements about merits of criminal case in presence of jury creates rebuttable presumption of prejudice).
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    is dispositive of the issue because the case extended rule 803(4) to apply to domestic-abuse cases.
  • State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Leja 660 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
    In order to contest a search of his property, a defendant must establish a “legitimate expectation of privacy relating to the area searched or the item[s] seized.”
  • State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
    (hereinafter “Richards IV”).
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
    “Because the decision whether [an] affected juror may *372 continue to sit involves determinations of credibility and demeanor, which are best left to the trial court, this court affords the trial court’s decision significant deference.”
  • State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
    (acknowledging criminal defendant’s constitutional right to represent himself); see also U.S. Const, amend.
  • State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
    See, (citing Rakas, 439 U.S. at 138-48 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    421, 425 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)
  • State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    The independent source doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained during an unlawful search if the police could have retrieved the evidence “on the basis of information- obtained independent of their illegal activity.” , 203-04 n. 2 (Minn.1996).
  • State v. Worthy 569 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Worthy 569 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    First, bars the reappointment of counsel where the defendant seeks to delay or manipulate the proceedings.
  • State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997