Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCollum v. State, 640 N.W.2d 610.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
V; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
He relies on the supreme court’s holding that the district court errs if it gives a no-adverse- inference instruction without a defendant’s “clear consent and insistence,” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If the defense reque sts the instruction, “the trial court or defense counsel should make a record of the defendant’s clear consent and insistence that the instruction be given.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A [district] court ordinarily should not give a no - adverse-inference instruction unless the defense requests it,” and because the instruction “calls the defendant’s silence to the jury’s attention,” the instruction “ordinarily should not be done without the defendant’s personal consent.” 616-17 (Minn. 2002); (“We have made clear that CRIMJIG 3.17 should not be given without the personal and clear consent of the defendant.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Implicated within this right is the right of a defendant who does not testify at trial to “not have anyone in the courtroom use his silence against him.” McCollum v. State , see also Minn. Stat. § 611.11 (2014) (stating that defendant at trial “shall” at his or her “own request .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jamey Ryan Williams Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Grauel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 880 (emphasis added) ().
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that criminal defendant has right to notice of charges under “due process notice requirement”); (stating that criminal defendant has due process right “to be treated with fundamental fairness and afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense” (quotations omitted)); (“The purpose of restricting the prosecution to th
State of Minnesota v. Jesse B. Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse B. Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-17 (Minn. 2002); see also Minn. Stat. § 611.11 (2014) (stating that a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to testify, but failure to do so “shall not create any presumption against the defendant”).
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin James Wallin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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).
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A defendant who does not testify at trial has a right not to have anyone in the courtroom use his silence against him.” (citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
-18 (Minn.2002) (citing U.S. Const, amend.
State v. Burkland 775 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Burkland 775 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that due process guaranteed by Minnesota Constitution is identical to that guaranteed by the United States Constitution).
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
Explained State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 3.17 (4th ed. 1999 & Supp.2003-04)
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
State v. Vance 714 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 2006
See, (stating that a no-adverse inference instruction regarding a defendant’s decision not to testify draws attention to defendant’s silence and should not be given absent a request).
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
State v. Frazier 649 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
(citing Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 305 , 101 S.Ct.
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
However, to provide additional factual context for *914 the procedural posture of this case