Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Burrell, 697 N.W.2d 579.

49 citing documents.

In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Because district courts are afforded “broad discretion to make discovery rulings,” a writ of prohibition on a discovery matter should be issued [only] if it appears that the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction or where it appears the action of the court relates to a matter that is decisive of the case; where the court has ordered the production of information clearly n
Carlos Avelino Contreras, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“[I]n criminal trials, expert testimony must be monitored carefully to ensure that the jury is the sole determiner of a witness’s credibility.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Clayton Douglas Groves, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1, 2021) (reiterating that the standard for in-camera review is only a “plausible showing,” which does not require absolute certainty as to the contents of the privileged information sought); (concluding that, in a close case, the district court should have conducted an in-camera review of privileged records even though defendant could be engaging in a “fishing expedition” and the records sought may not contain useful evidence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
8 that “[s]ince [appellant] waived the in camera review and elected to proceed to trial, the [c]ourt cannot find at this time that he has made a plausible showing that the information would still be material and favorable to his defense.” See State v. Burrell , d 579, 605 (Minn. 2005) (holding that a defendant requesting in-camera review must make a plausible showing that the information sought to be reviewed would be material and favorable to the defense).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
) (Minn. 2005) (concluding that the district court erred by failing to perform in camera review when the defendant requested discovery surrounding plea negotiations plausibly implicating Brady).
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We review findings of fact surrounding a purported Miranda waiver for clear error, and we review legal conclusions based on those facts de novo to determine whether the state has shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the suspect’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Antonio Diaz-Arreguin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“District courts have wide discretion on discovery rulings,” d 579, 603 (Minn. 2005), and appellate courts review evidentiary rulings “for an abuse of discretion, even when a constitutional violation is alleged,” d 293, 306 (Minn. 2015), cert.
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
d 6 227, 233 (Minn. 2010) ().
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
State v. Burrell (Burrell I)
State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
Thus, we have said that “the best course is to specifically warn the minor that [her] statement can be used in adult court, particularly when the juvenile might be misled by the protective, nonad-versary environment that juvenile court fosters.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
-93 (Minn.2005) (adopting a totality of the circumstances test).
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Schlienz 774 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell (Burrell I)
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
we concluded that Burrell’s waiver of his Miranda rights was ineffective because of the lack of a parent’s presence.
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
we said that "[a] defendant requesting in camera review must make at least some 'plausible showing' that the information sought would be material and favorable to his defense.” 23 .
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Warsame 735 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2007
State v. Warsame 735 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2007
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Warsame 701 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Warsame 701 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The state argues that to be testimonial, N.A.’s statements had to have been made in response to “structured police questioning,”