Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238.
- State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Don Antione Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- In re the Marriage of: Maria Pieternella Knight v. James Donald Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
In re the Marriage of: Maria Pieternella Knight v. James Donald Knight
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Likewise, “[w]hether a judge has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
- State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
- State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
- State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
-
State v. Munt
831 N.W.2d 569
Minn. 2013
presided over a criminal defendant’s trial prosecuted by the same prosecuting authority); -69 (Minn.2009)(involving a trial judge engaged in ex parte communication with the prosecutor, during which the judge told *581 the prosecutor to be prepared to respond to an anticipated plea-withdrawal motion and suggested specific opposing arguments); -52 (Minn.2005) (involving a judge, who acted as finder-of-fact in the bench trial, questioned the veracity of a factual assertion made by a defense witness
- State v. Pratt 813 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2012
- State v. Pratt 813 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2012
- State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
- State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
- State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-
State v. Swinger
800 N.W.2d 833
Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[Sjtructural errors are ‘defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by “harmless-error” standards.’ ” (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 , 111 S.Ct.
- State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Jacobs 791 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Jacobs 791 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. Berrios
788 N.W.2d 135
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But we observe that, although depriving a criminal defendant of the right to an impartial jury is structural error, -53 (Minn.2005), Berrios does not argue, nor is there an evidentiary basis to do so, that the alternate juror was biased.
- State v. DALBEC 781 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. DALBEC
781 N.W.2d 430
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 , 111 S.Ct.
- State v. Fluker 781 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. Fluker
781 N.W.2d 397
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The Minnesota Supreme Court has generally “agreed with the [United States] Supreme Court that most constitutional errors can be harmless.” (quotation omitted); (stating that the United States Supreme Court has applied harmless-error analysis even to errors deemed presumptively prejudicial, such as a court official’s improper statements about the merits of a case in front of the jury).
- State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
- State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
- Bonga v. State 765 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
-
Bonga v. State
765 N.W.2d 639
Minn. 2009
-53 (Minn.2005) (holding that the presence of a structural error precludes harmless-error analysis and requires reversal).
- Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
- Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
- State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
- State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
- State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
- State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
- State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Burrell
743 N.W.2d 596
Minn. 2008
(“Whether a judge has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct is a question of law, which we review de novo.”); 257 (Minn.2001) (indicating that “[w]e review the issuance of a writ of prohibition by reviewing the underlying issue” and noting that we have “inherent au
- State v. Brown 732 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 2007
- State v. Brown 732 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 2007