DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Roberts, 208 N.W.2d 744.

72 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Testimony regarding defendant’s request to speak wit h an attorney is inadmissible because it has “no legitimate probative value” and serves as a “badge of guilt .” State v. Roberts
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Noel asserts his choice to avail himself of the right to counsel cannot be held against him at trial
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Id.; State v. Roberts , 296 Minn. 347, 353
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353 -200 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that such testimony is generally inappropriate to the extent that it gives rise to an impermissible inference of culpability).
  • State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hall 764 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2009
    1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 352 , ).
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
    The decision to apply a standard requiring consideration of factors other than just whether the overwhelming evidence of guilt was sufficient to outweigh the error was based in large part on our precedent, notably State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353 , -48 (1973).
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
    92, 509-10 (Minn.2006) (silence used as impeachment); (post-arrest failure to testify before grand jury); (post-arrest silence); (same); (post-arrest silence on advice of counsel); State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 349-53 , -48 (1973) (post-arrest silence).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
    It is not unusual for juries to view such statements as a “badge of guilt.” See State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353 , (quoting Walker v. United States, 404 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir.1968)).
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Generally, the prosecution cannot at trial use the fact that the defendant “stood mute or claimed his privilege [to remain silent] in the face of accusation.” State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 352
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Litzau 650 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2002
    1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 352 , ).
  • State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Cf. State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353 , -48 (1973) (holding where case’s outcome hinged on whether jury believed defendant or victim, erroneous admission of evidence that defendant requested counsel when asked by officer whether he committed crime could have reasonably influenced verdict and was not harmless error).
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353 , (stating court must be able to declare belief that error is harmless beyond reasonable doubt).
  • State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
    State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353
  • State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
    (citing State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353 , ).
  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
    Cf. State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347 , (concluding important factor in jury verdict was whether they believed the defendant or the victim).
  • State v. Juarez 572 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Juarez 572 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1997
    A determination that the district court erred in admitting the statement will not result in an automatic reversal of the conviction if the error is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 853
  • State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
    Since 1973, this court has held that when a constitutional right is at stake, in order for trial court error to be harmless, this court “must be able to declare a belief that it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 353
  • State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
    at 1612 ; State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 352
  • 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. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347
  • 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
    See State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 352 , 208 * (defendant invoked right to counsel).
  • 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
  • Giddings v. State 290 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1980
  • Giddings v. State 290 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1980
    See State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347
  • State v. Crisler 285 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Crisler 285 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1979
    * * * [Defendant has the right to stop custodial interrogation at any time * * * *682 State v. Roberts, 296 Minn. 347, 352
  • State v. McCullum 289 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1979