DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schabert, 15 N.W.2d 585.

43 citing documents.

  • In Re Civil Commitment of Williams 735 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re Civil Commitment of Williams 735 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    nce of the evidence’ standard was not sufficient to preserve fundamental fairness to candidates for civil commitment in light of their strong interest in avoiding involuntary confinement and psychiatric treatment”); , 399-400 & n. 1 (Minn.1977) (citing federal precedent and noting that juvenile-court due process requires fundamental fairness); State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1, 5-10 , -89 (1944) (applying standard of fundamental fairness in due process challenge to criminal trial proceedings).
  • State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    For example, the right to counsel extends to proceedings such as police interrogations, State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1, 9 , and circumstances in which a driver has been asked to submit to a chemical test under the implied-consent law.
  • Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
  • Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
    In State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1, 9 , we construed the statute and held that interrogation of an accused person was a “proceeding.” II.
  • Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety 247 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1976
  • Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety 247 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1976
    In State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , we held that an examination or inquisition of an accused person was a “proceeding” within the meaning of the statute.
  • State v. Wajda 206 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Wajda 206 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1973
    See, State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1
  • Van Straaten v. State 204 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
  • Van Straaten v. State 204 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1973
    State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1
  • State v. Hanson 176 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Hanson 176 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1970
    The previous practice in this state, approved in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , of receiving tendered confessions in evidence whenever the lack of voluntariness does not appear as a matter of law is no longer acceptable.
  • State v. Gerberding 162 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Gerberding 162 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1968
    The issue of voluntariness was heard separately by the trial judge and then submitted to the jury pursuant to the long-observed procedure outlined in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 .
  • State Ex Rel. Hershenhorn v. Tahash 152 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1967
  • State Ex Rel. Hershenhorn v. Tahash 152 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1967
    It is apparent that in admitting evidence of the confession to the jury he was following the procedure, outlined by this court in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , of permitting the jury to determine the voluntariness of a confession when that, upon the evidence presented, is a question of fact.
  • State Ex Rel. Gerberding v. Tahash 146 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1966
  • State Ex Rel. Gerberding v. Tahash 146 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1966
    This hearing followed the procedure long observed by our court, as outlined in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 .
  • State v. Keiser 143 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Keiser 143 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1966
    The procedure heretofore followed by this court as expressed in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 ; State v. Nelson, 199 Minn. 86 , ; State v. Ellis, 271 Minn. 345 , 136 N. W. (2d) 384 , must be revised because it presents a hazard “that a jury permitted to decide both voluntariness and credibility will fail to reject a confession obtained by improper means when persuaded of the t
  • State v. Ellis 136 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Ellis 136 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1965
    This was pursuant to State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , where it was held that when this issue arises the court, outside the jury’s presence, should hear all evidence on the question, and where this discloses doubt as to the voluntariness of the confession, submit such evidence, together with the confession, to the jury for determination of the issue
  • State v. Rasmussen 128 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Rasmussen 128 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1964
    State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 ; see, State v. Arradondo, 260 Minn. 512 , 110 N. W. (2d) 469 ; State v. Gensmer, 235 Minn. 72 , 51 N. W. (2d) 680 .
  • State v. Biron 123 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Biron 123 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 1963
    He determined that a question of fact was presented, and following the procedure outlined in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , permitted the defendant to introduce his testimony in regard to that issue after the state had concluded its evidence thereon.
  • State v. Schwartz 122 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1963
  • State v. Schwartz 122 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1963
    A similar issue was raised in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , and while that case was reversed on other grounds, we expressly disapproved of the practice of jurors riding to and from the trial with a bailiff who appeared to have an interest in the prosecution and sat at the counsel table with the county attorney during the trial.
  • State v. Arradondo 110 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1961
  • State v. Arradondo 110 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1961
    State v. Nelson, 199 Minn. 86 , ; State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 .
  • State v. Demry 109 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1961
  • State v. Demry 109 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1961
    See, State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 .
  • State v. Anderson 78 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1956
  • State v. Anderson 78 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1956
    ng such situations is expressed in Aide v. Taylor, 214 Minn. 212, 217 , 7 N. W. (2d) 757, 760 , 145 A. L. R. 530, 534, where we stated: “* * * If it conclusively appears that the party was incapacitated from making a rational admission, as where he was at the time in a coma, the question becomes one of admissibility, and the statement should be ruled out entirely.” Likewise, in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , which concerned the voluntary character of a confession, we stated
  • State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
  • State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
    160 ; State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N.W.
  • State v. Gensmer 51 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1951
  • State v. Lowrie 49 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1951
  • State v. Gensmer 51 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1951
    Defendant cites State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , in support of his position.
  • State v. Schabert 24 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1946
  • State v. Schabert 24 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1946
    Our former opinion, reported in State v. Schabert, 218 Minn. 1 , 15 N. W. (2d) 585 , was based on a record limited to defendant’s testimony, certain exhibits, the county attorney’s argument, and the court’s charge.