Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sterling, 834 N.W.2d 162.
- State of Minnesota v. Cole Lyle Kjellberg Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Cole Lyle Kjellberg
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence even in cases based on circumstantial evidence.”
- State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The issue of whether a suspect is in custody and therefore entitled to a Miranda warning presents a mixed question of law and fact” that requires “independent review of the [district] court’s determination regarding custody and the need for a Miranda warning.” -68 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See id.; (stating that appellate courts “review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole”).
- State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.3 (Minn. 2013) (“To the extent that Sterling’s assertions in his pro se brief are intended to raise other claims without citation to the record or legal authority, we conclude that those claims, whatever they may be, fail.”).
- State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.’” (quoting Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 102, 116 S. Ct. 457, 460 (1995)).
- State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014