Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Helenbolt, 334 N.W.2d 400.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Anxiety due to pretrial incarceration is “unfortunate, but not a serious allegation of prejudice.” (d 400, 405-06 (Minn. 1983)), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
d 400, 405 (Minn. 1983 ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that appellant could not complain about inadmissible evidence on appeal when appellant failed to object to state eliciting challenged evidence and, as part of trial strategy, re-elicited the same evidence and used it in his final argument).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d that “it does not appear, at least I have not heard that there has been any prejudice to [Lee] in bringing this matter to trial.” The record supports the district court’s finding that Lee did not suffer any prejudice to his defense, other than “stress, anxiety and inconvenience experienced by anyone who is involved in a trial.” See Friberg, d at 515; see, -06 (Minn. 1983) (finding no violation of speedy -trial right even though defendant alleged prejudice in form of anxiety and impairment of d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 513-14 (d 224, 234-36 (Minn. 1986) (seven months); State v. Helenbolt , -06 (Minn. 1983) (14 months); (seven months); (six months)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[Appellant] cannot on appeal raise his own trial strategy as a basis for reversal.” (d 400, 407 (Minn. 1983)).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthony Ehlen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A party generally cannot base his appeal on an error he invited, nor can he appeal based on his own trial strategy
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Goelz 743 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Dukes 544 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1996
State v. Dukes 544 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1996
for the proposition that “generally evidence of a plea of guilty * * * is not admissible to prove the guilt or lack of guilt of the accused.” -07 (Minn.1983) (suggesting that the criminal complaint of an accomplice might be inadmissible hearsay that deprives the defendant of the right to cross-examine).
State v. Johnson 498 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1993
State v. Johnson 498 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1993
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Friberg 435 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1989
State v. Friberg 435 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1989
-36 (Minn.1986) (seven month delay did not violate right to speedy trial where defendant asserted right but court system was overburdened and no unfair prejudice resulted); -406 (Minn.1983) (fourteen month delay did not violate right to speedy trial where delay was caused by state’s pre-trial appeal and the only serious prejudice was faulty memory of state’s witness); (no denial of right to speedy trial where *514 defendant was respo
State v. Huddock 408 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Huddock 408 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Sap 408 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sap 408 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-06 (Minn.1983); see also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Carlson 369 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Carlson 369 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
2182, 2192 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)
State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
Relevant cases include: (holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by evidence that the state’s chief witness, defendant’s accomplice, had been convicted by a different jury of burglary and acquitted of felony murder, even though that tipped off the jury in the defendant’s case that the other jury believed the accomplice’s ve
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
State v. Spurgin 358 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1984
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wallace v. Lockhart, 701 F.2d 719, 726 (8th Cir.1983), cert.
State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
holds that denial of the writ does not bar raising the issue on appeal.