Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hannon, 636 N.W.2d 796.

33 citing documents.

Kevin Terrance Hannon, Minn. 2021
State v. Hannon (Hannon I), –07 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cf. State v. Hannon d 796, 804-05 (Minn. 2001) (finding the statement “[c]an I have a drink of water and then lock me up—I think we really should have an attorney” to be an unambiguous request for counsel).
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
State v. McAllister , , 59 (Minn. 2015) ; see also State v. Hannon , , 807 (Minn. 2001).
Kevin Terrance Hannon v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2017
Kevin Terrance Hannon v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2017
1 Among the pieces of evidence later discovered by law enforcement was a bloodstained denim shirt identified as the one that 1 The facts underlying Hannon’s crime are set forth in detail in State v. Hannon (Hannon I), and State v. Hannon (Hannon II)
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
-43 (Minn.2003) (holding that an officer impermissibly attempted to have a suspect revoke his right to counsel when the officer said that the suspect’s invocation of counsel would prevent the police from sharing information with the suspect); , 805 n. 2 (Minn.2001) (concluding it was improper for an officer to imply that a suspect’s choice to speak with an attorney meant that the suspect would never have an opportunity to tell his side of the story).
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
(finding that the defendant made an equivocal request for counsel by asking whether the officer thought the defendant should have an attorney); -05 (Minn.2001) (“ ‘Can I have a drink of water and then lock me up-I think we really should have an attorney1 ” was an unequivocal request for an attorney); Munson d at 139-40 (“ T think I’d rather talk to a lawyer’ ” was an unequivocal request for counsel).
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
for the proposition that the determination of "whether an accused invoked his right to counsel” is a factual question.
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
State v. Hannon (.Hannon I), 807 (Minn.2001).
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
reh’g denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(applying the clear-error standard in reviewing district court’s finding that accused did not unambiguously and unequivocally invoke his right to counsel).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by