Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Heiges, 806 N.W.2d 1.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Thompson Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Thompson Minn. 2024
abrogated on other grounds, –14 (Minn. 2021) (clarifying that Minn. Stat. § 634.03 (2020) does not include a trustworthiness standard).
Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
See, (concluding “the State has met its burden of producing corroborating evidence” without analyzing the language of Minn. Stat. § 634.03); –14 (Minn. 2011) (same); State v. McLarne, 150 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Secti on 634.03 has a dual fu nction: “it discourages coercively acquired confessions and requires that ad missions and confessions be reliable.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kimberly Brinkman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“ The reviewing court must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, a prosecutor can rely on confession evidence in conjunction with other evidence, and the “evidence needed to corroborate a confession to police is not required to address every element of the charged offense.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review jury instructions “in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.” aff’d (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Instead, Minn. Stat. § 634.03 only requires independent evidence of attending facts or circumstances from which the jury may infer the trustworthiness of the confession.” (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that trustworthy confession was 9 sufficient to support conviction) (citing Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 156, 75 S. Ct. 194, 199 (1954)), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
.”); (concluding that the term “‘confession’ in section 634.03 is broad enough to cover all acknowledgments of guilt made after a crime is committed, whether the acknowledgement is made to a friend, acquaintance, or to the police”).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonny Spillum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-14 (Minn. 2011) (finding adequate corroborating evidence of the defendant’s statements that she had been pregnant; she had tried to end her pregnancy; she planned to kill the baby after delivery; she delivered the baby in the bathtub; the baby’s father threatened to hurt her, as he had in the past, if she did
Jacky L. Larson v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, CMInformation Specialists, Inc. 855 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2014
Jacky L. Larson v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, CMInformation Specialists, Inc. 855 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2014
Cloud, and we often look to dictionary definitions to determine the plain meanings of words
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Paul Haas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Paul Haas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
3 Section 634.03 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] confession of the defendant shall not be sufficient to warrant conviction without evidence that the offense charged has been committed.” For purposes of this statute, “confession” means “a statement made after the commission of the offense in which the defendant implicitly or explicitly acknowledges guilt.”
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
An appellate court, when interpreting a statute, must apply its unambiguous plain meaning, and, in doing so, may consider “dictionary definitions,” and “Black’s Law Dictionary,” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., , 759 n. 2 (Minn.2010) ( (using Black’s Law Dictionary to determine the meaning of “product”)).
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(concluding that legislative omission does not necessarily render a statute ambiguous and stating that “[i]n construing statutes, we cannot supply that which the Legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks”).
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011