Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Walen, 563 N.W.2d 742.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
We know that the privilege belongs to the client because “[a] client can waive his or her attorney-client privilege either by explicit consent or by implication.” (emphasis added); see Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A defendant’s personal waiver of the right to testify “should be voluntary and knowing.”
John Thomas Owen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A defendant’s personal waiver of the right testify “should be voluntary and knowing.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
It is true that the supreme court has not required district c ourts “to perform an on-the-record colloquy 12 with every criminal defendant who does not testify.” - 52 (Minn. 1997).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. C. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
see In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 31 (1967) (holding that “due process and fair treatment” apply to juvenile proceedings) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The Minnesota Supreme Court has declined to require district courts “to perform an on-the-record colloquy with every criminal defendant who does not testify.” -52 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But defendants may waive their constitutional right to testify like other constitutional rights—so long as that waiver is “voluntary and knowing.”
Jose Angel Trevino, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Evidence is relevant when it logically or reasonably tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue, or tends to make such a fact more or less probable, or affords a basis for or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact.” d 742, 749 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The use of visual aids is within the trial court’s discretion and “[s]uch aids are admissible if they will assist the jury in understanding the witness’ testimony.” Rhodes, d at 84; (recognizing that the “appropriate test” for admissibility of a visual aid is “relevance, in other words, whether the .
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The use of visual aids is an issue within the discretion of the [district] court.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When the trial court record is silent as to waiver, this court ‘must presume that the decision not to testify was made by defendant 8 voluntarily and intelligently.’” ().
In the Matter of the CIVIL COMMITMENT OF Gary George SPICER 853 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the CIVIL COMMITMENT OF Gary George SPICER 853 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Dean Zittel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“The appropriate test regarding the admissibility of photographs and other visual aids is relevance, in other words, whether the photographs and other visual aids are helpful to the jury.”).
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
details the facts underlying Walen’s conviction; therefore we discuss only those facts relevant to this opinion.
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
State v. Berkovitz 705 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 2005
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
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
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
State v. Dame 670 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 2003
The appropriate test regarding the admissibility of photographs and other visual aids is relevance, in other words, whether the photographs and other visual aids are helpful to the jury.”
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
(citing DeZeler, 230 Minn. at 46-47 , d at 319 ).
State v. Hatfield 639 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 2002
State v. Hatfield 639 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 2002
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of M.P.Y. 630 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
Such aids are admissible if they will assist the jury in understanding the witness’ testimony.” (internal citations omitted).
State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hatfield 627 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2001