Cited by

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

54 citing documents.

State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
judiced.” Appellant argues he must be granted a new trial “[bjecause this court cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was ‘surely unattributable to the error.’ ” In evaluating communications between a court and a jury during deliberations, the supreme court has cautioned that “[a] record is critical to ensure adequate appellate review and a fair process.”
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The general rule is that any communications between the court and the jury after deliberations have begun should take place “in open court and in the defendant’s presence.” -56 (Minn.2001) (citation omitted).