Legal Opinion

State v. Finnegan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 30, 2010No. A08-0777PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GILDEA, Justice.

This case is before us on review of the district court’s denial of appellant Jason Finnegan’s petition for posteonviction relief. Finnegan contended in his petition that he was entitled to a new trial because a portion of his first trial was conducted in his absence. The postconviction court denied the petition, and the court of appeals affirmed. Because we conclude that Finnegan did not meet his burden to show that he was involuntarily absent, we affirm.

An Otter Tail County jury found Finnegan guilty of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. United States v. John Tortora, United States of America v. Samuel SantoroCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
  3. State v. WorthySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  4. United States v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
  5. United States v. Damian Pena BenavidesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. KoppiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  2. Bobo v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  3. Dobbins v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  4. Darryl Colbert v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
  5. State v. KuhlmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011

17 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