Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cassidy, 567 N.W.2d 707.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. 2026
(stating that “[t]he right of confrontation is fundamental under both the federal and state constitutions”), –97 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mervel George Jones, III, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mervel George Jones, III, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
1(2); d 707, 709 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. John Kevin Melina Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Kevin Melina Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Omar Kwabena Walford, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In general, “voluntary absence without compelling justification” is “a waiver of the right to be present.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court "has an obligation to safeguard" fundamental rights at trial, State v. Cassidy , , 711 (Minn. 1997), and a criminal defendant's right to confront opposing witnesses is fundamental to a fair adversarial process, State v. Peltier , , 804 (Minn. 2016).
, A17-1301 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court “has 7 an obligation to safeguard” fundamental rights at trial, and a criminal defendant’s right to confront opposing witn esses is fundamental to a fair adversarial process
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
D E C I S I O N I. Absence From Trial Our court reviews the decision to proceed with trial in the absence of the defendant for an abuse of discretion, and “will not disturb the [district] court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.” –10 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Tony Lee Love v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tony Lee Love v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-10 (Minn. 1997) (stating that clearly erroneous factual findings constitute an abuse of discretion); (illustrating that a district “court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without justification, or in contravention of law”), review denied (Minn.
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
I. “Like any constitutional right, the right to be present at trial may be waived by the accused,”
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. DeWalt 757 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. DeWalt 757 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
1(1) (providing that criminal defendant “shall be present” “at every stage of the trial”)
DRJ, INC. v. City of St. Paul 741 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
DRJ, INC. v. City of St. Paul 741 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(applying general rule on need for adequate record in criminal case involving discretionary decision regarding conduct of trial in absen-tia).
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998