Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vue, 797 N.W.2d 5.

83 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that this court should consider “the closing argument as a whole rather than focus on particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence”).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If the [s]tate is unable to meet its burden, we must decide whether the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that the suggestion that the jury would have to “believe the impossible” to accept the defendant’s argument was not belittlement because the prosecutor highlighted evidence why the jury should reject the defendant’s theory), (concl
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Saaundre Julian Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Christopher Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] Miranda warning is required as a procedural safeguard to protect a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights when the police subject a suspect to custodial interrogation.” (emphasis omitted); see also U.S. Const. amend.
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“If the meaning of the statute is ‘clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.’ ” (quoting Minn.Stat.
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
indicate that an individual is in custody: (1) the police interviewing the suspect[ ] at the police station; (2) the suspect being told he or she is a prime suspect in a crime; (3) the police restraining the suspect[’s] freedom of movement; (4) the suspect making a significantly incriminating statement; (5) the presence of multiple officers; and (6) “a gun pointing at the suspect.” (quoting Staats, d at 211 ).
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Radke 821 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2012
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011