Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Link, 289 N.W.2d 102.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at Lake Calhoun in 2010 did not conform to its offer of proof and was “simply too incomplete.” (quotation omitted).
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
(noting that routine booking statements do not require Miranda warnings); (stating that biographical questions do not require Miranda warnings); (explaining that routine booking questions relating to name, address, or other similar matters do not require a Miranda warning).
State v. Maldonado-Arreaga 772 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Maldonado-Arreaga 772 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In support of its conclusion
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
1557 (1946); ("[I]f there is ever to be finality in the criminal justice system, a harmless error doctrine is essential.").
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
1557 (1946); (“[I]f there is ever to be finality in the criminal justice system, a harmless error doctrine is essential.”).
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
(holding that “Miranda warnings need not be given before asking routine booking questions”); (holding that “[biographical questions are not proscribed by Miranda ”).
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(“Miranda warnings need not be given before asking routine booking questions”); (“[biographical questions are not proscribed by Miranda ”).
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Because “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to decide what instructions are necessary to the jury’s decision, * * * his discretion must be respected.”
State v. Graham 371 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1985
State v. Graham 371 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1985
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. King 367 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
State v. Olson 291 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1980
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980