State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Garza
Syllabus
A defendant on trial for escape from custody for having failed to return following a temporary leave granted for a limited period under Minnesota Statutes section 609.485, subdivisions 1 and 2(1) (2020), is entitled to have the district court instruct the jury that the state has the burden to prove that his failure to return was intentional and voluntary. Appeal dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that the attorney’s improper 18 statements did not warrant a new trial because they were “isolated, rather than persistent”
- stating that the timing of the misconduct is a factor to consider, and finding no misconduct when the statement was in opening arguments
- upholding district court’s denial of Rule 59(a) motion
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.