DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270.

193 citing documents.

  • Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    (recognizing right to be present at trial may be waived if done so competently and intelligently); State v. Utecht, 228 Minn. 44, 48 , see also Pearson v. United States, 325 F.2d 625, 626-27 (D.C.Cir.1963) (holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial
  • State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Jones 772 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2009
    We will only overturn a “finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.”
  • State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    -76 (Minn.1998); (stating that waiver was valid where defendant’s decision was “unequivocal” and “he was cognizant of the consequences of the decision”); -13 (Minn.1990) (stating that waiver may be valid if the record sh
  • State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    (citing John *827 son v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 , 58 S.Ct.
  • State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Lasnetski 696 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See *394 -78 (Minn.1998) (holding that when defendant voluntarily leaves courtroom, he waives right under Confrontation Clause to be present at trial); (stating defendant may intelligently waive right against self-incrimination)
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “A defendant may not demand a continuance to delay the proceedings or by arbitrarily attempting to substitute another attorney at the time of trial.”
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    The constitutional right to be present may be waived if done so “competently and intelligently.” , *616 277 (Minn.1998) (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 , 58 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hawanchak 669 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Hawanchak 669 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Christian 657 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (holding that a defendant with prior felony convictions including possession of a dangerous weapon, possession of a controlled substance, receiving stolen property and attempted burglary was properly sentenced as a career offender).
  • Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    “A defendant’s refusal, without good cause, to allow appointed counsel to continue representation may by itself be sufficient to find a valid waiver.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (noting trial court’s practice of holding pro se defendants to the same standard as licensed attorneys after defendants waived their right to counsel).
  • In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 614 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 614 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 604 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 604 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Haney 600 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Haney 600 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
    “A defendant may not demand a continuance to delay the proceedings or by arbitrarily attempting to substitute another attorney at the time of trial.” (citing Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. at 299 , d at 264 ); -59 (Minn.1977).