Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Nissalke

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 13, 2011No. A09-1829Published

1DissentPage, Justice

The court goes to great lengths to explain why the rule we set out in State v. Mims does not entitle Nissalke to a new trial. But to paraphrase Queen Gertrude in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the court “doth protest too much, methinks.” See William Shakespeare, Hamlet act 3, sc. 2 (“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”). In Mims, we set forth the rule “that in any criminal case any communication relating to the case occurring during a judge’s uninvited entry into the jury room during deliberations and in the absence of defendant and counsel constitutes reversible error.” 306 Minn. 159, 165, 235…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. Ming Sen ShiueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  2. State v. MimsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  3. Danes v. PearsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. State v. SchluterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  5. State v. MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006

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

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

Powered by the Exa API