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. Sickels, 275 N.W.2d 809.

32 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    d at 161-62; (explaining that Minnesota has adopted the “fact-specific inquiry” announced in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), to determine whether “the taint of an illegal arrest is sufficiently attenuated” to permit admission of verbal evidence obtained after an unlawful arrest); (citing Brown in setting forth the four-factor fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree test).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (determining that officers did not exploit an illegality because “the police did not engage in any oppressive or coercive questioning”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    State v. Sickels , , 814 (Minn. 1979).
  • State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Ronnebaum 446 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Sorenson 441 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Sorenson 441 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1989
    -14 (Minn.1979) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct.
  • State v. Warndahl 436 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Warndahl 436 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1989
  • Coralin v. State 377 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1985
  • Coralin v. State 377 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1985
    the victim, who had been shown photographs of the defendant out of court, made an in-court identification of the defendant.
  • State v. Sims 375 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sims 375 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 365 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 365 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    While physical lineups are encouraged, , 814 n. 1 (Minn.1979), we are aware of no case which holds it is a denial of due process not to conduct a physical lineup.
  • Coraline v. State 363 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Coraline v. State 363 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    citing Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jensen 349 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Distinguished State v. Jensen 349 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    the Minnesota Supreme Court elaborated on this rule: Numerous factors bear on the application of this test, including the temporal proximity of the illegality and the evidence alleged to be the fruit of that illegality, the presence of intervening circumstances, the purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct
  • State v. Kulseth 333 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Kulseth 333 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1983
    See, State v. Schenk, 311 Minn. 549 , State v. Rainey, 303 Minn. 550 , Jankord v. State, 290 Minn. 168 , cert.
  • State v. Vangstad 289 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Vangstad 289 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1979
    2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)
  • State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
    Even though the unnecessarily suggestive photographic display may have created a likelihood of misidentification, here, the record before us does not show the requisite substantial likelihood of irreparable misidenti-fication.