Harassment Restraining Order

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether it was not plain error for the trial court to instruct jury to to draw no inference from defendant not testifying

Defendant was convicted of violating a harassment restraining order (HRO).  At trial, the trial court instructed the jury to draw no inference from defendant’s decision not to testify.  Defendant’s counsel consented to the instruction at trial.  The trial court did not seek nor obtain defendant’s personal consent for the instruction.  Defendant appealed, arguing that the giving of the no inference instruction without obtaining defendant’s personal consent was prejudicial error.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the error was not plain error, and, there was no reasonable likelihood the no inference instruction significantly affected defendant’s substantial rights.  Affirmed.

State v. Fredin, A19-0085, Ramsey County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

By |2020-05-13T02:13:14+00:00May 13th, 2020|Victories/Case Law Updates|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment