Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Fabian, 735 N.W.2d 295.

36 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Randy Lee Morrow. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2021
(suggesting that deference is due to the Department regardin g whether an inmate is amenable to sex offender treatment), overruled on other grounds, (Mi nn.
Jerry Duwenhoegger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Johnson v. Fabian , Carrillo, d at 773.
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
See Johnson v. Fabian , , 310 (Minn. 2007) (holding that a defendant can claim the privilege against self-incrimination until conviction, and as long as a direct appeal of that conviction is pending or the time for direct appeal of that conviction has not expired).
Ronnie Jerome Jackson, III, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
For the Fifth Amendment privilege to apply, “two distinct elements must be present—compulsion and incrimination.”
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. LaFountain 901 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
5 (providing criminal penalty for failure to follow registration requirements); (holding that the extension of inmates’ incarceration time for refusal to admit to sexual offenses in sex-offender treatment violated Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination).
Lovell N. Oates, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Randy Lee Morrow, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Joshua Sather, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jacquet Deon Munn, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In order for the privilege to apply, two distinct elements must be present— compulsion and incrimination.”
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Anthony Alan Early v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Anthony Alan Early v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-29 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
V. The privilege allows an individual to refuse to “‘answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.’” (quoting Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426, 104 S. Ct. 1136, 1141 (1984)).
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973)
Kristopher Lee Roybal v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristopher Lee Roybal v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2015
V; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; –10 (Minn. 2007).
Ricky James Bedell v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 853 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ricky James Bedell v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 853 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Starkson 1 Although appellant’s refusal to sign the pre-entry agreement precedes the date the notice of appeal was filed, this is not significant because “a convicted individual can claim the privilege against self-incrimination as long as a direct appeal of that conviction is pending, or as long as the time for direct appeal of that conviction has not expired.”
Aziz v. Fabian 791 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Aziz v. Fabian 791 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(holding that Carrillo and McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
State v. Morales 788 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2010
In Johnson v. Fabian, we stated that “[t]he Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be [a] witness against himself.’” (quoting U.S. Const, amend.
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(holding that privilege against self-incrimination can survive exhaustion of a direct appeal).
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Roth v. Commissioner of Corrections 759 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Roth v. Commissioner of Corrections 759 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because (1) he was disciplined for refusing to admit to sex offenses and (2) applies retroactively to his case.
Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 742 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 742 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(explaining that United States Supreme Court decision on federal constitutional issue effectively overruled contrary prior ruling from Minnesota Supreme Court), aff'd