Cited by

When evaluating the inferences that may be drawn from the circumstances proved, “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”

Importantly, when evaluating the inferences that may be drawn from the circumstances proved, “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”

Importantly, when evaluating the inferences that may be drawn from the circumstances proved, “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”

.” (quotations and citation omitted).

5 -68 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).

In evaluating the inferences that may be drawn from the circumstances proved, “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”

“The issue of whether a suspect is in custody and therefore entitled to a Miranda warning presents a mixed question of law and fact qualifying for independent review.”

In evaluating the inferences that may be drawn from the circumstances proved, “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”

“The issue of whether a suspect is in custody and therefore entitled to a Miranda warning presents a mixed question of law and fact.” (quotation omitted).

(concluding that the error was harmless in part because the introduction of the evidence was “without drama or fanfare and likely had no unduly prejudicial e ffect”).

See State v. Sterling , (c oncluding that the error was harmless in part because the introduction of the evidence was “without drama or fanfare and likely had no unduly prejudicial effect”).

When reviewing the record , we will consider “ the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.” State v. Sterling , (quotation omitted).

“The issue of whether a suspect is in custody and therefore entitled to a Miranda warning presents a mixed ques tion of law and fact qualifyi ng for independent review.” (M inn.

8 “We review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, b ut as a whole.”

See, -68 (Minn. 2013) (stating that even though an appellate court “ makes an independent review of the [district] court[’s] determination regarding custody and the need for a Miranda warning,” it grants “considerable, but not unlimited, deference to a [district] court’s fact -specific resolution of such an issue w

“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer to the jury ’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State .” State v. Sterling , (quotation omitted); see also State v. Nissalke , (“We construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” (quotation omitted)).

” State v. Sterling , (internal quotations omitted).

” State v. Sterling , (quotations 4 omitted).

ndard when reviewing the district court’s determination that 9 Nichols was in custody for Miranda purposes.6 See, e.g., Horst, d at 31 (“If the district court applies the correct legal standard, we grant considerable, but not unlimited, deference to the district court’ s fact-specific resolution of whether the interrogation was custodial.” (quotation omitted)); -68 (Minn. 2013) (stating that even though an appellate court “makes an independent review of the [district] court[’s] determination reg

State v. Sterling , , 167-68 (Minn. 2013).

“ An appellate court reviews a [district] court’s findings of historical fact relating to the circumstances of the interrogation pursuant to the clearly erroneous test but makes an independent review of the [district] court [’]s determination regarding custody and the need for a Miranda warning.” State v. Sterling , d 162, 16 7-68 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Wiernasz , (footnote omitted)).

As a safeguard for this right, the United States Supreme Court has held that statements made by a suspect during a ‘custodial interrogation’ are admissible only if the police provided a Miranda warning before the statements were made.” see U.S. Const. amend.

-68 (Minn.2013); -95 (Minn.2006)

“An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.” (quotation omitted).

When determining if a verdict is surely unattributable to erroneously admitted evidence, this court should consider “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.” (quotation omitted).