Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 784 N.W.2d 355.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
James Kevin Obowa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Gary John Bogatz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Gary John Bogatz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(holding that an erroneously admitted confession had “powerful evidentiary value” because it was “unquestionably the strongest piece of evidence” against the defendant and was the “central focus” of the prosecutor’s closing argument) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When a district court decides whether a suspect successfully invoked the right to counsel during a custodial interview, that determination involves intertwined questions of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (recognizing that factual findings regarding motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error); State v. Chavarria-Cruz , (same).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
See State v. Chavarria-Cruz , , 366 (Minn. 2010) (Gildea, J., concurring); 23 Ronald I. Meshbesher & James B. Sheehy, Minnesota Practice-Minnesota Trial Handbook for Minnesota Lawyers , § 39:5 (2018-19 ed.) ("Most courts, however, have replaced the 'fair preponderance' language with the phrase 'greater weight of the evidence.'
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(applying clear error standard of review to underlying facts when reviewing whether appellant had invoked his right to counsel where there was both an audio recording of and testimony about the interrogation).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We review de novo whether a stop is supported by reasonable suspicion, but review for clear error “the factual determinations underlying [that] legal conclusion[].” 5 ().
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. D. B., Juvenile Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- 64 (Minn. 2010); see also State v. Anderson , (stating that an appellate court “review[s] de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures”).
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
Finally, weighty reasons of judicial policy undermine Lugo’s argument that we should defer to district courts on constitutional issues “such as probable-cause and reasonable-suspicion determinations.”
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 355, 363 (Minn. 2010).
Lucas Gordon Bunde v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lucas Gordon Bunde v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
For legal support, –65 (Minn. 2010).
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
A therefore, we will set out only the facts relevant to this appeal.
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
State v. Prtine 799 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2011
State v. Prtine 799 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2011
-64 (Minn.2010) (discussing the standard of review for “fact-intensive, mixed questions of constitutional law” and explaining that the factual components are reviewed for clear error and the application of the legal standard to those facts is reviewed de novo).
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
Wiernasz, d at 3 ; (explaining that the de novo standard controls our review of a district court’s legal conclusions).