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. Orscanin, 283 N.W.2d 897.

39 citing documents.

  • Bixler v. State 568 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Bixler v. State 568 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    in discussing an omnibus court’s decision that a confession was voluntary, the supreme court described the inquiry as follows: Whether defendant’s confession was voluntary turns on a determination of defendant’s state of mind at the time of the confession.
  • State v. Hince 540 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Hince 540 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1995
    The most direct statement he made on this point was equivocal, at best: “[j]ust the way he was talking to me I got the impression that I wouldn’t be charged with this.” cert.
  • State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
    This court considers several factors in making this determination including the appellant’s “age, maturity, intelligence, education, experience, and the ability to comprehend.” cert.
  • State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Barsness 446 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    “[T]he trustworthiness of a confession should not in every instance be discounted because investigative officers * * * in their interviews might have made discursive or imprecise statements to the defendant.” State v. Biron, 266 Minn. 272, 282 , -01 (Minn.1979), cert.
  • State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Erickson 403 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Erickson 403 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Cash 391 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cash 391 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Gullekson 383 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Further, while it is clear that involuntary or coerced confessions are suppressible, the evidence presented to the trial court was not so highly indicative of a coerced or involuntary statement that it was “plain error” for the trial court to admit it when no fifth-amendment claim was asserted.
  • State v. Budke 372 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Budke 372 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    1489, 1493 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964); cert.
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Jensen 349 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jensen 349 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Courts have focused on numerous factors when examining the circumstances of a confession, including: (1) the defendant’s age, experience, and mental capacity, (2) the use of stress creating techniques, (3) the length and conditions of the confinement or interrogation, Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 , 83 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jungbauer 348 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Jungbauer 348 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Brown 345 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Brown 345 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Anderson 298 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Anderson 298 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Terry 295 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Garner 294 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Garner 294 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Terry 295 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1980
    appeal after remand, cert.