DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Andrews, 388 N.W.2d 723.

71 citing documents.

  • State v. Needham 488 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    -9 (Minn.1986) (intent must generally be proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words and actions in light of surrounding circumstances).
  • State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
    State v. Wajda, 296 Minn. 29, 31-32 , -3 (1973).
  • State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Ness 431 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Ness 431 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (defendant’s actions indicating escape and failure to seek medical help for victim indicated intent and premeditation rather than accidental stabbing in the course of a struggle, as defendant claimed).
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Harris 407 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Harris 407 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    “Statements made by an accused during custodial interrogation may be admitted at trial only if he or she was properly informed of constitutional rights, has knowingly and intelligently waived the privilege against self-incrimination, and has made the statements freely and voluntarily.”
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the issue is “whether the lack of a second warning left the defendant unaware of the meaning or seriousness of the second interrogation.”