holding that “the submission of documentary evidence presenting contradictory versions of events” is a bench trial under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 2, and not a stipulated-facts trial under 26.01, subd. 3
How later courts described this case
- holding that “the submission of documentary evidence presenting contradictory versions of events” is a bench trial under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 2, and not a stipulated-facts trial under 26.01, subd. 3
- stating that a court “need not address both the performance and prejudice prongs” of the Strickland test if one is determinative (quotation omitted)
- holding that “submission of documentary evidence presenting contradictory versions of events cannot constitute a valid trial on stipulated facts”
- stating that “[t]he interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law that we review de novo”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Wright.