Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99.

559 citing documents.

State v. Budke 372 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed statements of police officers designed to encourage the defendant to talk by informing him about the evidence against him and possible charges.
State v. Waterston 371 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Waterston 371 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of R.L.N. 371 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of R.L.N. 371 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stimpert 370 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stimpert 370 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
An officer has probable cause to arrest where, “in the particular circumstances, conditioned by his own observations and information, and guided by the whole of his police experience, [the officer] reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested.” State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196
State v. Olson 361 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Olson 361 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Carver 363 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Carver 363 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Finbraaten 363 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Finbraaten 363 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Jobe 361 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Jobe 361 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We must ask whether the fact finder has given “due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of prov *169 ing the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, as we must, there is no merit to defendant’s argument.
In re the Welfare of D.A.H. 360 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In re the Welfare of D.A.H. 360 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Sullivan 360 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Sullivan 360 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Craig 359 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Craig 359 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Berg 358 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Berg 358 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Jensen , which stated: Whether an accused has waived his right to remain silent and whether he has confessed voluntarily are two separate issues.
STATE, CITY OF WOOD LAKE v. Johnson 358 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
STATE, CITY OF WOOD LAKE v. Johnson 358 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ANALYSIS This court’s : In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.
State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
(“police must also be allowed to encourage [a suspect] to talk where the suspect has not clearly refused”).
State v. Ronning 356 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ronning 356 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Mattson 356 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Alowonle 356 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Mattson 356 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Givens 356 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Strother 354 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Strother 354 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Trotter 354 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1984