State v. Modtland

22 Citing cases

  1. State v. Voeltz

    No. A22-0726 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    However, "this right is not absolute: it may be satisfied without a full physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial if (1) the interference with confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured." State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 717 (Minn.App. 2022) (applying test set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 850 (1990)), rev. granted (Minn. Apr. 27, 2022) and ord. granting rev. vacated (Minn. Mar. 14, 2023)

  2. State v. Brimmer

    983 N.W.2d 247 (Iowa 2022)   Cited 49 times

    The district court here did not explicitly analyze the Waller factors before ordering its closure, but its "on-the-record description of the courtroom and its findings regarding" Brimmer's public trial objection "implicitly address the Waller factors" sufficiently to permit appellate review. State v. Modtland , 970 N.W.2d 711, 721 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022). That said, "[g]oing forward, we encourage district courts to make explicit Waller findings on the record when they limit courtroom access.

  3. State v. Cuenca

    524 P.3d 882 (Idaho 2023)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that wearing surgical masks did not reduce the reliability of the testimony, citing Crittenden

    raig when a confidential informant testified in court, in view of the defendant, while wearing a fake mustache and wig to conceal his identity from the defendant and the Sinaloa Cartel); Romero , 173 S.W.3d at 503–06 (applying Craig when a witness testified in court, in view of the defendant, while wearing dark sunglasses, a baseball cap pulled down over his forehead, and a jacket with an upturned collar in a futile attempt to confer "a degree of anonymity" from a "dangerous" defendant who apparently already knew the witness’ name and address by the time of trial). Furthermore, in the context of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, some courts have applied the Craig balancing test to testimony from witnesses—otherwise in court and in full view of the defendant (and vice versa)—by reasoning that there was an "infring[ed]" face-to-face confrontation at trial, United States v. Crittenden , 2020 WL 4917733, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2020) (alteration added), or the absence of a "full," State v. Modtland , 970 N.W.2d 711, 716 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022), or "traditional" face-to-face confrontation at trial, United States v. James , 2020 WL 6081501, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2020). See Crittenden , 2020 WL 4917733, at *6–7 (holding that the mask procedure requiring witnesses to be physically present in court, under oath, and subject to cross-examination was sufficient to ensure the reliability of the evidence, and that requiring masks while testifying was necessary to further the important public policy of ensuring the safety of everyone in the courtroom); James , 2020 WL 6081501, at *2 (same); Modtland , 970 N.W.2d at 716 (same); People v. Lopez , 75 Cal. App. 5th 227, 232–33, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 383 (2022) (same).

  4. Smith v. State

    693 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    See People v. Wandrey, 80 Cal.App.5th 962, 296 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460 (2022); Alvarez, 290 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 352-54; State v. Cuenca, 171 Idaho 603, 524 P.3d 882, 888-89 (2023); People v. Lanaux, No. 1-21-1038, 2023 WL 4561547, at *3-4 (Ill. App. Ct. July 17, 2022); State v. Hardy, 344 So. 3d 821, 834 (La. Ct. App. 2022); Hunt, 293 A.3d at 431-32; Farmer v. State, No. 1300, 2023 WL 2806062, at *6 (Md. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2023); State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 717-21 & 720 n.3 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022); State v. Voeltz, No. A22-0726, 2023 WL 5341512, at *5-7 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2023); State v. Mountain Chief, 413 Mont. 131, 533 P.3d 663, 672-73 (2023); Peters v. State, No. 82437, 2022 WL 17367580, at *1 (Nev. Nov. 30, 2022); Jesenya O., 493 P.3d at 430-32; Commonwealth v. Dixon, 276 A.3d 794, 805 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).See United States v. James, No. CR-19-08019-001-PCT-DLR, 2020 WL 6081501, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2020); United States v. Holder, No. 18-cr-00381-CMA-GPG-01, 2021 WL 4427254, at *9 (D. Colo. Sept. 27, 2021); Crittenden, 2020 WL 4917733, at *5-7; Clemons, 2020 WL 6485087, at *2-3

  5. State v. Stroschein

    No. A21-0976 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2023)

    But this right is "not absolute." State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 721 (Minn.App. 2022), rev. granted on other ground (Minn. Apr. 27, 2022). It "may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests."

  6. Finley v. State

    No. PD-0634-22 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 27, 2024)

    United States v. Crittenden, No. 4:20-CR-7 (CDL), 2020 WL 4917733 at *20 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2020) (finding "being able to see a witness's nose and mouth is not essential to the reliability of the testimony); See e.g., United States v. James, No. CR-19-08019-001-PCT-DLR, 2020 WL 6081501 at *5 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2020) (stating the "Court finds the rationale in Crittenden persuasive in concluding that being able to see a witness's nose and mouth is not essential to test the reliability of the testimony"); State v. Cuenca, 524 P.3d 882, 888 (Idaho 2023) (finding that wearing surgical masks did not reduce the reliability of the testimony, citing Crittenden); State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 720 (Minn.Ct.App. 2022) (finding that wearing surgical masks did not reduce the reliability of the testimony, citing Crittenden); People v. Lopez, 75 Cal.App. 227, 234 (2022) (finding that wearing surgical masks did not reduce the reliability of the testimony, citing Crittenden). Appellant argues that he was denied face-to-face confrontation.

  7. State v. Bell

    993 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    And other courts have held that whether a district court complies with relevant judicial orders informs whether a defendant's public trial right was violated and "whether it considered reasonable and less restrictive alternatives." State v. Brimmer , 983 N.W.2d 247, 269–70 (Iowa 2022) ; see alsoState v. Modtland , 970 N.W.2d 711, 722–23 (Minn. App. 2022), rev. granted in part and stayed (Apr. 27, 2022), rev. denied (Mar. 14, 2023) (holding that a district court's adherence to the Minnesota Judicial Branch's Preparedness Plan showed it "considered the options available to it"). Here, the district court did everything it could to rigidly adhere to the requirements set by the Judicial Council and guidance from public health officials, all while balancing Bell's other constitutional rights, including a trial by jury and a speedy trial.

  8. State v. Coons

    2023 N.D. 115 (N.D. 2023)

    Although we require findings sufficient to satisfy Waller, we do not necessarily require that the court expressly references that or any other case so long as the findings themselves are sufficient. See State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 721-723 (Minn.Ct.App. 2022). Here, the court did not refer to Waller or generally to the threshold requirements before closing a trial proceeding but did make some findings that we now consider under the Waller framework.

  9. State v. Shea

    No. A23-1523 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2024)

    Our conclusion is consistent with prior cases in which this court assumed that the first three plain-error prongs were met regarding the admission of certain evidence but concluded that the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or reputation of the judicial proceedings because the state could have addressed the hearsay challenge by having the relevant witness testify if the defendant had properly objected. See, e.g., State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 723-24 (Minn.App. 2022), rev. granted (Minn. Apr. 27, 2022) and ord. granting rev. vacated (Minn. Mar. 14, 2023). In Modtland, we declined to grant a new trial because "it would be seriously unfair to grant relief to appellant on this issue" given "the problems created by appellant's failure to object at trial[.]"

  10. State v. Holinka

    No. A23-0615 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 6, 2024)

    See State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 723-24 (Minn.App. 2022) (concluding that it would be unfair to grant appellant a new trial where appellant knew the substance of the hearsay statements in an exhibit, knew the declarant would not testify, and objected to other statements contained in the exhibit), rev. granted (Minn. Apr. 27, 2022) and ord. granting rev. vacated (Minn. Mar. 14, 2023).