Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Widell, 258 N.W.2d 795.
- Collins v. State 385 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Collins v. State 385 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Abbott 356 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Abbott
356 N.W.2d 677
Minn. 1984
1682, 1688 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980), but was a spontaneous, volunteered statement made while police were asking routine booking questions
- State v. Link 289 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 1979
- State v. Link 289 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 1979
- State v. Corarito 268 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
-
State v. Corarito
268 N.W.2d 79
Minn. 1978
Minnesota cases applying this test include State v. Widell, Minn., State v. Knox, Minn.
- State v. Hamilton 268 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1978
-
State v. Hamilton
268 N.W.2d 56
Minn. 1978
We adopted this standard in State v. Widell, Minn., though our cases prior to Wingo also looked to these factors, particularly the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant.