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. Kelley, 517 N.W.2d 905.

72 citing documents.

  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (attorneys need not be notified about questions regarding “physical comforts and the like”) (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 15-3.7(b) (1986)).
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Greer 635 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2001
    While we have distinguished communications relating to aspects of a pending case from nonsub-stantive contacts and mere pleasantries, (noting that a judge should not communicate with jurors outside the presence of the parties "on any aspect of the case itself (as distinguished from matters relating to physical comforts and the like)”), see also Cox, d at 558 (holding that a rebuttable presumption of prejudice attaches when
  • Pajunen v. Monson Trucking, Inc. 612 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Pajunen v. Monson Trucking, Inc. 612 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    at 337-38 ( (quoting A.B.A.
  • State v. Jackson 596 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Jackson 596 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
    The court shall not require or threaten to require the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals.” (quoting A.B.A.
  • State v. Danforth 573 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Danforth 573 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
    If a trial court’s *911 instructions appear to have coerced a jury to reach a unanimous verdict, State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , -770 (1973), or allowed the jury to believe that a deadlock is not a possible outcome to their deliberations, a new trial is necessary.
  • State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Bowles 530 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Bowles 530 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1995
    See, -11 (Minn.1994) (holding that certain juror misconduct, although not warranting a new trial by itself, provided a “secondary basis” for decision to grant a new trial); (“The exposure of a jury to potentially prejudicial material creates a problem of constitutional magn