Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Berkelman, 355 N.W.2d 394.

85 citing documents.

Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The effect is that the case will be submitted to the jury as an ordinary DWI case.” n.2 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermale Jerome Leonard, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermale Jerome Leonard, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But a defendant may waive his right to a jury trial on an element of an offense by “judicially admit[ting] the existence of that element, thereby removing the issue from the case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 394, 396 (Minn. 1984) , which held that a defendant on a charge of aggravated DWI should have let the defendant stipulate to his prior DWI conviction, which was an essential element of the charge, and thus remove that issue from the jury, but that the error in not accepting the stipulation was not so prejudicial as to
Steven Charles Perkins, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
7, 2022) () ; see also Minn. R. Civ.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.2 (Minn. 1984) (“By judicially admitting the existence of the element of the prior conviction, the defendant 2 Hansmann directs us to cases regard ing sufficiency of trial evidence, which we typically review under a deferential standard.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(- 97 (Minn. 1984)), reversed and remanded, (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Robert Alan Keogh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Wemyss , d 802, 808 (Minn. App. 2005) (Wemyss I) (- 97 (Minn. 1984)), reversed and remanded, (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But a defendant may stipulate to an element of the offense, “thereby removing the issue from the case.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[A] prior conviction is an element of the offense of aggravated DWI.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellant relies on three cases: WL 817266 (Minn. App. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that defendants should generally be able to remove a conviction-based element from the jury through stipulation, but leaving open the possibility that such evidence may be admitted on other grounds when its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice).
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-62 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding that district courts “must accept an unequivocal judicial admission of a prior DWI and let the defendant remove from the jury the issue of whether he had prior DWI convictions”); n.2 (Minn. 1984) (noting that if a defendant 7 concedes a prior DWI conviction, evidence regarding the conviction should not be admitted unless it is relevant to a disputed issue because of its “great potential for being improperly used”).
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alan Edsill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A “prior conviction is an element which the state must prove at trial and which [the] defendant has a right to have a jury decide.” d 394, 396 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Making this stipulation “remov[ed] the issue from the case,” and the predicate conviction prohibiting appellant from possessing a firearm was not presented to the jury.
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant may elect to waive his right to a jury trial on one element of an offense and admit the existence of that element, “thereby removing the issue from the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But a defendant may stipulate to an element of the offense, “thereby removing the issue from the case.” d 394, 397 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vida Kay Bjorklund Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant may stipulate to an element of the offense, thereby “removing the issue from the case.”
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Kuhlmann 780 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Evidence of a defendant’s prior DWI conviction usually is inadmissible in a prosecution for the same because of its “great potential for being improperly used.” , 397 n. 2 (Minn.1984) (citing Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, -12 (Minn.1984); see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191-92 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wemyss 696 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(noting that defendant “in effect offered” to waive jury trial on element of prior DWI conviction within five years by agreeing to stipulate to that fact).
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Stillday 646 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2002