Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sessions, 621 N.W.2d 751.

54 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(citing Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 374 (1892)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sessions, -56 (Minn. 2001) (stating that “the general rule is that a trial court judge should have no communication with the jury after deliberations begin unless that communication is in open court and in the defendant’s presence” and concluding that the district court violated the defendant’s right to be present by re
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[T]he general rule is that a trial court judge should have no communication with the jury after deliberations begin unless that communication is in open court and in the defendant’s presence.” –56 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
any jury questions dealing with evidence or law”); Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117-18 (1983); -56 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Sessions , -56 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Even if a defendan t is wrongfully denied the right to be present at every stage of trial, a new trial is warranted only if the error was not harmless.” State v. Sessions , ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“A record is critical to ensure adequate appellate review and a fair process.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–57 (Minn. 2001) (stating that “the general rule is that a [district] court judge should have no communication with the jury after deliberations begin unless that communication is in open court and in the defendant’s presence,” and holding that “the [district] court committed error by engaging in substantive c
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Even if the district court wrongfully denied Rodriguez the right to be present at his restitution hearing, a new restitution hearing is warranted only if the district court’s error was not harmless.3 –57 (Minn. 2001) (holding that district court erred in communicating with jury outside of open court, without defendant’s presence, and without making contemporaneous record of communications, but that error was harmless).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Through the Confrontation Clause, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a defendant the right to be present at all stages of trial.”
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
1; (stating that a criminal defendant has the right to be present at all stages of trial under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment).
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to be present at such a proceeding because “[r]esponding to a deliberating jury’s question is a stage of trial.”
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
“[T]he general rule is that a trial court judge should have no communication with the jury after deliberations begin unless that communication is in open court and in the defendant’s presence.” -56 (Minn.2001).
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
State v. Smith 674 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2004
State v. Smith 674 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2004
Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction *401 Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 3.03 (4th ed.1999) (hereinafter CRIMJIG)
Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. State 672 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“Through the Confrontation Clause, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a defendant the right to be present at all stages of trial.”
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
McKenzie v. State 670 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 2003
McKenzie v. State 670 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 2003
Sessions v. State 666 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2003
Sessions v. State 666 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2003
State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Jackson 655 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Compassionate Home Care, Inc. 639 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-56 (Minn.2001) (noting that rule requiring that jury be conducted to the courtroom is mandatory and does not depend on the nature of the court’s response).