Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Minnesota v. Christian Dulue Flah. Criminal law, jury instructions
The defendant was tried for first degree criminal sexual conduct. On the first day of trial, the state rested its case, and the defense rested its case without calling any witnesses. On the second day of trial, the defendant didn't show up. His attorney stated that he preferred that a no-adverse-interest instruction be given. That instruction is at the option of the defendant, and tells the jury that no inference can be drawn from the defendant's failure to testify.
The trial court did not give the instruction, and the defendant was convicted. He appealed, and the case was heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
'A [district] court ordinarily should not give a no-adverse-inference instruction unless the defense requests it,' and because the instruction 'calls the defendant's silence to the jury's attention,' the instruction 'ordinarily should not be done without the defendant's personal consent.'
In this case, the defendant's voluntary absence made the personal consent impossible. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing the instruction. "To hold otherwise 'would enable a defendant either to obtain a mistrial by refusing to attend trial when jury instructions are being considered, or to challenge on appeal the district court's refusal to instruct the jury as his attorney requested.'"
No. A18-1758 (Minn. Sept. 9, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com