Legal Opinion

State v. Olson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 2, 2000No. C3-99-1558PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RANDALL, Judge

This is an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief. Appellant argues that double jeopardy barred his retrial after the district court declared a mistrial in his first case. In that trial, the district court denied appellant’s substitute counsel’s motion for a continuance. The denial of that motion had the effect of forcing appellant to proceed pro se at trial. After jeopardy attached, the district court reconsidered its earlier denial of a continuance and now decided that a mistrial should be declared as a method of giving appellant a continuance.

Appellant…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Gori v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. State v. LothenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. State v. FullerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. HunterCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
  2. Commonwealth v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Virginia · 2002
  3. Commonwealth v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Virginia · 2002
  4. State of Minnesota v. Russell James FenstermakerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
  5. State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API