State v. Irby, 820 N.W.2d 30

Irby fired several shots at T.D. and J.D., injuring both, leading to initial assault and burglary charges that resulted in a mistrial.
The State recharged Irby with the same counts plus prohibited-person in possession of a firearm; the district court admitted two prior felonies for impeachment.
The jury ultimately convicted Irby on all counts in June 2011.
Irby appealed arguing: (1) the presiding judge was not a de jure or de facto judge due to residency, (2) improper impeachment by prior felonies, (3) public-trial right violated by locking courtroom doors during final jury instructions.
The court affirmed, holding the judge remained de facto (or de jure) despite residency, the impeachment evidence was not an abuso, and the closure did not violate the public-trial right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial authority due to residency	Irby contends the judge ceased to be a de jure judge.	Irby argues residency violation removed judge from office.	No reversal; judge remained de facto (or de jure) despite residency violation.
Admission of prior felonies for impeachment	Irby claims abuse of discretion under Rule 609(a)(1).	State argues five Jones factors supported admission.	No clear abuse; factors weighed in favor; impeachment allowed.
Public-trial right and courtroom closure	Closure during jury instructions violated public trial rights.	No violation; closed during instructions but did not exclude the public overall.	No structural public-trial violation; closure permissible under circumstances.

State v. Harris, 667 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. 2003) (authority to preside over complex felony trials; de jure vs. de facto distinction)
Windom v. City of Duluth, 131 Minn. 154, 162 N.W. 629 (Minn. 1917) (de facto judge doctrine; acts valid if acting under color of law)
Burt v. Winona & St. Peter R.R. Co., 31 Minn. 472, 18 N.W. 285 (Minn. 1884) (de facto officer doctrine to protect reliance on public acts)
Carli v. Rhener, 27 Minn. 292, 7 N.W. 139 (Minn. 1880) (validity of acts of de facto officers)
State v. Swanson, 707 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. 2006) (Jones factors for balancing probative value vs. prejudice in impeachment)
State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1978) (five-factor test for admission of prior-conviction evidence; balancing)
State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 2008) (plain-error review for failure to give limiting instruction; trial-end instruction sufficiency)
Kuhlmann v. State, 806 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. 2011) (plain-error review; limiting instructions post-admission of 609 evidence)