Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 611. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 611.11 (2026)

No Presumption From Failure To Testify

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The defendant in the trial of an indictment, complaint, or other criminal proceeding shall, at the defendant's own request and not otherwise, be allowed to testify; but failure to testify shall not create any presumption against the defendant, nor shall it be alluded to by the prosecuting attorney or by the court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1960–2018 · leading case: McCollum v. State, 640 N.W.2d 610 (Minn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McCollum v. State, 640 N.W.2d 610 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 4× “1988); see Minn.Stat. § 611.11 (2000) (“[FJailure to testify shall not create any presumption against the defendant, nor shall it be alluded to * * * by the court.”
State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 4× “2d 106 (1965) (holding that comment on refusal to testify violates Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution); Minn.Stat. § 611.11 (1996). Adverse comment on the defendant's election not to testify may be either per se reversible error or harmless error.”
State v. Ihnot, 575 N.W.2d 581 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 4× “We urge trial courts to exercise great care in making the judgments called for by Rule 609.”
State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 611.11 (2004). If the defendant chooses not to testify, the trial court may instruct the jury not to draw any adverse inference from the fact that the defendant has not testified only if the defendant requests the court to do so.”
State v. Kvale, 302 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 611.11 (1978); State v. Rosillo, 281 N.”
State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 4× “The other issues raised by defendant on appeal relate to the sufficiency of the evidence and to the fact that in his closing statement to the court the prosecutor commented upon defendant's failure to take the stand. There is no merit to defendant's contention that the evidence…”
State v. Darris, 648 N.W.2d 232 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 2× “1988); see also Minn.Stat. § 611.11 (2000) (“[A defendant’s] failure to testify shall not create any presumption against the defendant, nor shall it be alluded to by the prosecuting attorney or by the court.”
State v. Gassler, 505 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 1993). “However, defendants often make decisions not to testify based on the potential damage that prior convictions could inflict on their credibility.”
State v. Larson, 358 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “2d 202 (1968); see Minn.Stat. § 611.11 (1982). However, in a subsequent case, Lakeside v.”
State v. Johnson, 915 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 2× “2002) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 611.11 (2016). The State concedes that the district court plainly erred, but argues that the error was not prejudicial.”
State v. McCarthy, 104 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. 1960). · cites it 2× “121, we feel that under § 611.11, which forbids allusion by the prosecuting attorney to a defendant's failure to testify, the principle governing the Simonsen case must be applied here.”
State v. Coley, 468 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Coley argues that the prosecutor’s repeated references to defense’s failure to contradict testimony indirectly alluded to his failure to testify, thus violating the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution; section 7, article 1, of the Minnesota Constitution; and…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.