Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Halseth, 653 N.W.2d 782.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
may be waived, including by failure to object to the offending evidence,” Trifiletti, d at 94 (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 314 n.3) (alteration in original).2 Our court has also expressed the understanding that deciding “what evidentiary objections to raise” is a “[n]onfundamental right[] that an attorney may waive.” (citing New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 115 (2000)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
what arguments to pursue, [and] what evidentiary objections to raise.”
Kenny Lee Reed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Reed cites State v. Halseth , arguing that “the lack of necessary waivers of any fundamental right renders the plea proceedings invalid.” (stating “that the requirements for a valid waiver prior to a stipulated court trial are similar to those necessary for a valid guilty plea under Minn. R. Crim.
Raymond Joseph Traylor, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 782, 786 (Minn. App. 2002) (permitting waiver of non-fundamental rights to be “effected by action of counsel”).
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
e, without discussing prejudicial impact of faulty waiver); –22 (Minn. App. 2007) (reversing conviction that resulted from Lothenbach proceeding, in absence of represented defendant’s valid waiver of rights to testify, confront witnesses against him, and subpoena favorable witnesses, without discussing prejudicial impact of faulty waiver); –87 (Minn. App. 2002) (reversing conviction that resulted from stipulated-facts trial, in absence of represented defendant’s valid waiver of rights to testify
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Failure to include all defenses, objections, issues, and requests in a motion constitutes a waiver.” (quotation omitted)); (explaining that an attorney may waive certain nonfundamental rights, including decisions pertaining to the conduct of trial); (holding defense counsel waived speedy trial requirement by agreeing to omnibus hearing date outside of time li
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Because the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right, waiver of this right must be “personal, explicit, and in accordance with rule 26.01.” see Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
787 (Minn.App.2002) as support for this proposition.
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Id.; (granting new trial when record lacked waiver of defendant’s right to testify).
State v. Knoll 739 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Knoll 739 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-87 (Minn.App.2002) (granting new trial when defendant failed to provide express waiver before trial on stipulated facts); -24 (Minn.App.1986) (noting that waiver requirements in Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Zulu 706 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Distinguished State v. Zulu 706 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review granted (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review denied (Minn. June 24, 2004)
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“A true Lothenbach stipulation does not involve a concession of guilt, and is intended only to preserve the defendant’s right of appeal while avoiding an unnecessary jury trial.” State v. Halseth, *253 , 786 n. 2 (Minn.App.2002).
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004