State v. Harris
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentGilbert, Justice
I concur with the majority that the legislature intended to permit the chief judge of the district to assign this felony matter to a judicial officer under Minn.Stat. §§ 487.08 and 484.69. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as to the constitutional power of a judicial officer to preside over this felony case. Even if the statute under which the judicial officer exercised authority is held unconstitutional, we should follow our long held precedent regarding de facto courts and the defendant should not receive a new trial. Any error must be reviewed for plain error. Here, if there…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Nguyen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Marriage of Holmberg v. HolmbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Burt v. Winona & St. Peter RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- State v. GlowackiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Demolition Landfill Services, LLC v. City of DuluthCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.