Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ware, 498 N.W.2d 454.

51 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And Minnesota has long recognized that courts have the inherent authority “to restrict attendance as the conditions and circumstances reasonably require for the preservation of order and decorum in the courtroom and to protect the rights of parties and witnesses.” d 454, 458 (Minn. 1993) (“Without a doubt a trial court may, in the appropriate exercise of its discretion, exclude spectators when necessary to preserve order in the courtroom.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- 58 (Minn. 1993) (“ [E]ven if a defendant is wrongly denied the right to be present, the defendant is not entitled to relief if it can be said that the error was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
State of Minnesota v. John Kevin Melina Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Kevin Melina Minn. Ct. App. 2024
1(1); (holding that the rules give defendants the “right to be present during the return of the verdict, including the polling of the jury”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(1); Ford, d at 712 (recognizing that the rule is broader than the constitutional right); (same).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
It is well established that “a trial court may, in the appropriate exercise of its discretion, exclude spectators when necessary to preserve order in the courtroom.”
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 454, 457-58 (Minn. 1993).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 454, 457 (Minn. 1993).
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
But we have recognized that “a trial court may, in the appropriate exercise of its discretion, exclude spectators when necessary to preserve order in the courtroom.”
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
Holt v. State 772 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-58 (Minn.1993) (applying harmless-error analysis to denial of right protected by rule 26.03, subdivision 1(1)).
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
While the defendant can waive his right to be present at a stage of trial, the decision to waive the right is “not for counsel to make but a personal decision for defendant to make after consultation with counsel.”
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 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
In State v. Ware, the supreme court held the “decision to waive is a decision not for counsel to make but a personal decision for defendant to make after consultation with counsel.”
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by these rules.” , .457 (Minn.1993), this court held that the right to be present is broader under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure than under the United States Constitution.
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating trial court is given latitude in questioning jurors to clarify confusion arising from jury poll).
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
State v. Erickson 597 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1999
(interests of justice required new trial because of synergy of questionable decisions by trial judge).
State v. Keeton 589 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1998
State v. Keeton 589 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1998
(citing Thompson, 430 N,W.2d at 152).
State v. Cassidy 567 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1997
State v. Cassidy 567 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1997
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Lory 559 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Hudspeth 535 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1995
State v. Hudspeth 535 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1995
State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994