State v. Kassube

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Kassube

259 N.W.2d 591, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1356

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 28, 1977

DocketNos. 46147 and 47359

StatusPublished

This text of 259 N.W.2d 591 (State v. Kassube) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Kassube, 259 N.W.2d 591, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1356 (Mich. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a joint trial a district court jury found defendant and a codefendant, Jens Olsen, guilty of charges of aggravated arson and conspiracy to commit arson. In State v. Olsen, Minn., 258 N.W.2d 898, filed October 7, 1977, we reversed Olsen’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the record did not show that Olsen and defendant had meaningfully waived their right to a separate trial until after the trial had started. In the opinion we also adopted new procedures requiring trial courts to personally address jointly represented defendants on the record before trial and inquire about their understanding of the potential dangers of dual representation by one attorney. A reversal of defendant’s conviction and a remand for a new trial is obviously mandated by this court’s decision in the Olsen case.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After a joint trial a district court jury found defendant and a codefendant, Jens Olsen, guilty of charges of aggravated arson and conspiracy to commit arson. In State v. Olsen, Minn., 258 N.W.2d 898, filed October 7, 1977, we reversed Olsen’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the record did not show that Olsen and defendant had meaningfully waived their right to a separate trial until after the trial had started. In the opinion we also adopted new procedures requiring trial courts to personally address jointly represented defendants on the record before trial and inquire about their understanding of the potential dangers of dual representation by one attorney. A reversal of defendant’s conviction and a remand for a new trial is obviously mandated by this court’s decision in the Olsen case.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 N.W.2d 591, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kassube-minn-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack