State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. 1995). · Go Syfert
State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“this is not a case in which the record is silent on whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.”
27 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim (minnctapp, 2015-07-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
this is not a case in which the record is silent on whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Shane Ryan Oneil
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Because appellant is presumed to know the consequences of discharging his court-appointed counsel, he made his waiver “with eyes open.” See id.; State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn. 1995) (distinguishing cases in which record is silent on defendant’s waiver with cases in which defendants “fire” their counsel).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rhoads (2×)
Minn. · 2012 · confidence medium
A district court’s failure to conduct an on-the-record inquiry regarding waiver, however, does not require reversal when the particular facts and circumstances of the case demonstrate a valid waiver. 7 Id. (citing State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rhoads
Minn. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
The Minnesota Supreme Court has found the initial waiver of counsel valid in circumstances where “the district court failed to follow a particular procedure.” In re G.L.H., 614 N.W.2d 718, 723 (Minn.2000) (citing Worthy, 583 N.W.2d at 275-76 ; State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garibaldi (2×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Id. at 413 . *828 In State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995), the supreme court held that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel when he was given counsel but fired his attorney, and the original public defender assisted the defendant at trial.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Finne v. State
Minn. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995).
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. (3×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. · 2000 · confidence medium
See State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270, 275-76 (Minn.1998); State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See id. at 276-77 (holding waiver valid because it could reasonably be presumed that benefits and risks of counsel have been described to defendants when defendants had competent legal representation for a month before they fired their public defenders on morning of trial); State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995) (holding waiver valid when defendant wanted to “fire” his attorney and was aware that he would have to represent himself).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Worthy
Minn. · 1998 · confidence medium
In State v. Brodie, this court was presented with circumstances that demonstrated a valid waiver by the defendant even when a detailed on-the-record colloquy between the defendant and the trial court was absent. 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995).
cited Cited "see" State v. Camacho
Minn. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557, 557 (Minn.1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Michael Wayne BRODIE, Appellant
C3-94-1167.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 31, 1995.
532 N.W.2d 557

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the State of Minnesota for further review of the decision of the court of appeals awarding defendant, Michael Wayne Brodie, a new trial on a charge of aggravated DWI be, and the same is, granted for the limited purpose of reinstating defendant’s conviction. The court of appeals based the award of a new trial primarily on (1) the trial court’s refusal to give all, as opposed to part, of a requested defense instruction on the defense of necessity and (2) the trial court’s failure to question defendant more on the record as to whether his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. We conclude that the court of appeals erred on both grounds. (1) We need not speak to the defense of necessity in any detail. Suffice it to say, in this case the defense did not meet its burden of raising the defense of necessity and therefore defendant was not even entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense. Defendant claimed necessity but our review of the record convinces us that he did not make a sufficient prima facie showing of justification by necessity. (2) This is not a case in which the record is silent on whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Defendant was in fact given counsel and he then “fired” counsel. The record is clear that defendant knew that he did not have a right to a different public defender but would have to represent himself if he did not accept the services of the public defender. The trial court apparently asked the original public defender to act as standby counsel and, in fact, that attorney not only helped defendant at trial but, with the defendant’s permission, gave the closing argument. Reversed and judgment of conviction reinstated.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith Chief Justice