context: . I am troubled by the trial court's preempto-ry effort to avoid having to call counsel and the defendant into open court to consider questions from the jury. This is a significant deviation from the rules of criminal procedure and this court should not acquiesce in this practice.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 296 N.W.2d 870, 878
citation_a.parenthetical: reversing and remanding for a new trial where the trial court refused to exercise its discretion by determining at the outset of deliberations that it would deny any jury requests to review trial transcript
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Rean, 421 N.W.2d 303, 306 (Minn.1988) (indicating that district courts cannot follow a blanket rule in denying requests to review testimony by a jury); see also State v. Spaulding, 296 N.W.2d 870, 878 (Minn.1980) (reversing and remanding for a new trial where the trial court refused to exercise its discretion by determining at the outset of deliberations that it would deny any jury requests to review trial transcript).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 421 N.W.2d 303, 306
citation_b.parenthetical: indicating that district courts cannot follow a blanket rule in denying requests to review testimony by a jury
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Rean, 421 N.W.2d 303, 306 (Minn.1988) (indicating that district courts cannot follow a blanket rule in denying requests to review testimony by a jury); see also State v. Spaulding, 296 N.W.2d 870, 878 (Minn.1980) (reversing and remanding for a new trial where the trial court refused to exercise its discretion by determining at the outset of deliberations that it would deny any jury requests to review trial transcript).