State v. Saybolt

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rosenlund

    No. A09-358 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2010)   Cited 2 times
    Affirming level-nine ranking for racketeering involving mortgage fraud

    Whether to give a proposed jury instruction is within the discretion of the district court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1990).

  2. State v. Mattila

    No. C1-02-2185 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2003)

    "Theft by swindle requires the intent to defraud." State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn.App. 1990) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1990).

  3. Alston v. Maryland

    Civil Action Case No. JKB-11-929 (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2011)

    "Although the trial court here could have in the reasoned exercise of its discretion granted defendant's mistrial motion," nonetheless "[a]bsent prejudice, reversal is not warranted"). See also, e.g., Cooper v. Campbell, Superintendent, Arkansas Department of Correction, 597 F.2d 628, 629 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 852, 100 S. Ct. 106, 62 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1979); State v. Gallow, 452 So.2d 1288, 1290 (La. App. 1984); State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 736-737 (Minn. App. 1990); Lester v. State, 767 So. 2d 219, 223 (Miss. App. 2000); State v. Barone, 329 Ore. 210, 227, 986 P.2d 5, 17-18 (1999).We agree with the majority view that draws a distinction between (1) a jury which is never sworn or not sworn prior to deliberations, and (2) a jury that is belatedly sworn, but the oath is administered before the commencement of jury deliberations.

  4. People v. Moon

    2022 IL 125959 (Ill. 2022)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that, as the state’s highest court, it may depart from federal structural error law, and that, given the "long and storied history" of a sworn jury in the state’s constitution, structural error applies because the "failure to swear the jury with a trial oath is an error of such gravity that it threatens the integrity of the judicial process"

    It is intended to impress upon the jury its solemn duty to carefully deliberate on the matter at issue. Most importantly the oath serves as a safeguard of a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury."); State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 737 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990) ("[Juror oaths] are not formalities, are sacred, and no citizen need expose himself to loss of liberty and property by people who are not sworn to do their duty." (Emphasis in original.)); Slaughter v. State, 28 S.E. 159, 161 (Ga. 1897) (in criminal cases, "a total failure to swear the jury is a matter which cannot, in any manner or under any circumstances, be waived; and, as a consequence, a conviction by an unsworn jury is a mere nullity");

  5. Alston v. State

    414 Md. 92 (Md. 2010)   Cited 80 times
    Defining a conspiracy as an "agreement between two or more people to achieve some unlawful purpose or to employ unlawful means in achieving a lawful purpose"

    judice"); People v. Morales, 168 A.D.2d 85, 89, 570 N.Y.S.2d 831, 833 (1991) ("[T]he jury was sworn prior to deliberations," and "the delay in swearing the jury constituted harmless error"); Statev. Roberge, 155 Vt. 121, 122-123, 582 A.2d 142, 143 (1990) ("[A]bsent . . . a showing of prejudice by the delay in swearing, there is no reversible error where a jury is sworn before deliberations in a criminal case"); State v. Block, 170 Wis.2d 676, 682, 489 N.W.2d 715, 717-718 (1992) (The jury was not sworn until six prosecution witnesses had testified, and the court held: "Although the trial court here could have in the reasoned exercise of its discretion granted defendant's mistrial motion," nonetheless "[a]bsent prejudice, reversal is not warranted"). See also, e.g., Cooper v. Campbell, Superintendent, Arkansas Department of Correction, 597 F.2d 628, 629 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 852, 100 S.Ct. 106, 62 L.Ed.2d 69 (1979); State v. Gallow, 452 So.2d 1288, 1290 (La.App. 1984); State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 736-737 (Minn.App. 1990); Lester v. State, 767 So.2d 219, 223 (Miss.App. 2000); State v. Barone, 329 Or. 210, 227, 986 P.2d 5, 17-18 (1999). We agree with the majority view that draws a distinction between (1) a jury which is never sworn or not sworn prior to deliberations, and (2) a jury that is belatedly sworn, but the oath is administered before the commencement of jury deliberations.

  6. State v. Arellano

    125 N.M. 709 (N.M. 1998)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that a defendant can waive his right to a sworn jury by knowing that the jury is unsworn and waiting until after the trial to complain about it

    Although the court goes on to state that "if the oath were not given at all we would have no hesitation in finding reversible error even absent any showing of actual prejudice," the fact that defense counsel apparently was aware that the jury was unsworn and did not bring this to the court's attention served as a factor in the appellate court's determination to uphold swearing the jury at such a late stage. {34} In State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 737 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990), the oath was not given until just prior to closing arguments, and while the appellate court stated that "[o]aths are not formalities" but "are sacred," the court upheld the conviction. The defendant raised the issue of the unsworn jury in his motion for a new trial, but the court held that the defendant did not object in a timely manner, thus failing to preserve the error.

  7. State v. Henline

    No. A20-0055 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2021)

    See State v. Matousek, 178 N.W.2d 604, 609 (Minn. 1970); State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 733-35 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1990).

  8. State v. Pohl

    A17-1401 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2018)

    The state first argues that this case is similar to State v. Saybolt, in which this court affirmed an employee's conviction for theft by swindle. 461 N.W.2d 729, 734-35 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1990).

  9. State v. Gabrelcik

    No. A08-1351 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2009)

    But during trial, appellant either failed to object to the admission of these items or withdrew any objection made. "[W]hen allegedly improper or prejudicial evidence has been admitted without objection, a party may not object to its admissibility for the first time in a motion for a new trial or on appeal." State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 737 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1990).

  10. State v. Rice

    No. A07-1559 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    "Theft by swindle requires the intent to defraud." State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn.App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1990).