Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Beck, 183 N.W.2d 781.

45 citing documents.

Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Edward Lee Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court has clarified that a prosecutor’s eliciting an officer’s testimony that the officer gave the defendant a Miranda warning is error when the testimony is “ wholly gratuitous, serving no probative purpose whatever.” –84 (Minn. 1971).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(holding that it was error to admit testimony by police officer that he advised “defendant that he had a right to remain silent and that anything he said might be used against him” because testimony was “wholly gratuitous, serving no probative purpose”).
In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan 811 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2012
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
See State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 292 , -84 (1971).
State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See also State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 292
State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Rean 420 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353 , State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 292
State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Okegbenro 409 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 291-93 , -84 (1971).
State v. French 402 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. French 402 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
2240, 2245 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976) (“it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person’s silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial”); State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 292 , -84 (1971) (when testimony is given regarding defendant’s silence which is not intended as foundation for admission of a voluntary confession, the potential prejudicial effect can be sufficient to warrant a new trial).
In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-44 (Minn.1979); State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 292-93 , -84 (1971).
State v. Folkert 354 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Folkert 354 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , held that it was reversible error to admit evidence that a Miranda warning was given where it was not intended as foundation for the admission of a voluntary confession by defendant, and it was properly objected to at trial.
State v. Willis 332 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1983
State v. Willis 332 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1983
Cf., State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347 , State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347 , State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287
State v. Serna 290 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1980
State v. Serna 290 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1980
State v. Combs, 292 Minn. 317, 322 , State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287, 292 , -84 (1971).
State v. Underwood 281 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1979
State v. Underwood 281 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1979
3172 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1187 (1976); State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347 , State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287
LaMere v. State 278 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
LaMere v. State 278 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
Petitioner relies primarily on this court’s decision in State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
State v. Roberts, supra; State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287
State v. Carl 246 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1976
State v. Carl 246 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1976
While testimony about Miranda warnings is generally impermissible for the reasons asserted by defendant, State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , , we have held that such testimony may be admitted to provide a foundation for the admission of subsequent statements made by the defendant if the testimony is of legitimate probative value in tending to show the voluntariness of the subsequent statement.
State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
State v. Walker 235 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
In State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , where the defendant did not take the stand, we held it was error to receive evidence of an arresting officer that he had advised defendant of his right to remain silent.
State, Village of New Hope v. Eric Duplessie 231 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1975
State, Village of New Hope v. Eric Duplessie 231 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1975
The prosecution may not, therefore, use at trial that he stood mute or claimed his privilege in the face of accusation.” In State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , this court followed this rule and held that it was reversible error to allow a police officer to testify that the Miranda warnings had been given to the defendant, unless such testimony was employed as a foundation for the admission of a confession.
State v. Andrews 212 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1973
State v. Andrews 212 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1973
In State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , we held it was error to receive into evidence, over objection thereto, testimony of an arresting officer that he gave Beck a “Miranda warning.” One of the basic reasons for the Beck decision was that it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment rights when
State v. Roberts 208 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1973
State v. Watts 208 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1973
State v. Watts 208 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1973
“A. He didn’t reply but he made it clear that he didn’t want to talk to us.” In State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , we held that where a defendant did not take the stand it was error to receive evidence of an arresting officer that he had advised defendant of his right to remain silent.
State v. Roberts 208 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1973
In State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , a case in which the defendant did not take the witness stand, we held that it was reversible error to admit testimony of an arresting officer that he had advised the defendant of his right to remain silent.
State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
State v. Combs 195 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1972
Defendant cites our recent decision of State v. Beck, 289 Minn. 287 , as authority for reversing his conviction.