Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bouwman, 354 N.W.2d 1.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Reinaldo Quesada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Reinaldo Quesada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 31.01; n.7 (Minn. 1984); Porte, d at 312.
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. ROESCHELEIN 776 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. ROESCHELEIN 776 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Cannady 727 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2007
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
*146 (quotation and citations omitted).
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-99 (Minn.1995) (listing factors of harmless error analysis); (defendants have right to be personally present at every stage of the trial “where their presence relates to the fullness of their opportunity to defend against the charge”) (citation omitted).
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Thompson 544 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1996
State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
4 .Traditionally, courts have held that a "defendant's absence from the critical stages of his trial merit[s] automatic reversal.”
State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
State v. Ware 498 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1993
453, 455 , 78 L.Ed.2d 267 (1983), -84 (Minn.1985)
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 474 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 474 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting United States v. Hinderman, 625 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir.1980)).
State v. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Jenkins 411 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sollman 402 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sollman 402 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
the court reviewed a case conducted under the previous Rule 20.02 allowing for a unitary trial.
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(Bouwman II); (Bouwman I).
State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
State v. Holmes 374 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Holmes 374 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984