Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Heden, 719 N.W.2d 689.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Deshon Israel Bonnell,
Minn. 2022
State v. Heden , –98 (Minn. 2006) (affirming a conviction for felony murder where the defendant tried to quiet a baby with a bottle, a pacifier and “digital penetration” (criminal sexual conduct) before losing his temper and shaking her to death); –66 (Minn. 2003) (holding that the state p
-
Theodore Pierre Jerry, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 444, 86 S. Ct. at 1612; see S tate v. Heden , -95 (Minn. 2006).
- Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
-
Crow v. State
923 N.W.2d 2
Minn. 2019
See State v. Heden , , 698 (Minn. 2006) (affirming life without possibility of release sentence for first-degree murder while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct); State v. Gutierrez , , 438-39 (Minn. 2003) (affirming sentence of life without the possibility of release for first-degree felony murder
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 444, 86 S. Ct. at 1612; -95 (Minn. 2006).
-
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
le, but not unlimited, deference to a [district] court’s fact-specific resolution of such an issue when the proper legal standard is applied” (quotations omitted)); Scruggs, d at 637 (citing Champion, d at 44, for the proposition that “[w]e give considerable, but not unlimited, deference to a [district] court’ s fact -specific” determination of custody) ; State v. Heden , -95 (Minn. 2006) (“We make an independent determination about whether a sus pect was in custody .
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 444, 86 S. Ct. at 1612; see also State 6 v. Heden, -95 (Minn. 2006).
- Mohamad Safraz Haniff, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- State v. Webster 894 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2017
-
State v. Webster
894 N.W.2d 782
Minn. 2017
(upholding a felony-murder conviction when the appellant sexually assaulted a child to stop her from crying, and then "lost control” and shook the child to death).
- State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr.
887 N.W.2d 476
Minn. 2016
-68 (Minn.2013); -95 (Minn.2006)
- In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child.
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A Miranda warning is required only for custodial interrogations, i.e., only for “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S. Ct. at 1612; -95 (Minn. 2006).
- State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
-
State v. Vang
847 N.W.2d 248
Minn. 2014
of showing that our culture and laws emphatically and well nigh universally reject the sentence.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
- State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
- State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
- State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
- State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
-
State v. McDaniel
777 N.W.2d 739
Minn. 2010
See, e.g., Crow, d at 281-82 (holding that a life sentence without the possibility of release for aiding and abetting first-degree murder during the course of a kidnapping did not exaggerate “the criminality of [defendant’s] conduct” even though he was not directly involved in the homicide); (holding that a life sentence without the possibility of release was not cruel or unusual for a defendant convicted of first-degree murder); Chambers, d at 480 (holding that a sentence of life imprisonment w
- State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
-
State v. Crow
730 N.W.2d 272
Minn. 2007
5 “Statutes are presumed constitutional, and a person challenging a sentence as cruel or unusual ‘bears the “heavy burden” * * * of showing that our culture and laws emphatically and well nigh universally reject’ the sentence.” (citations omitted).
- State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Werner
725 N.W.2d 767
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-95 (Minn.2006) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct.