Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wiernasz, 584 N.W.2d 1.

69 citing documents.

John Frederick Haugen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Jesse Bruce Jensen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellant is correct that, “the mere fact that questioning occurred in a suspect’s home does not by itself mean that the questioning was not custodial in nature.”
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wiernasz , , 3 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, “the mere fact that questioning occurred in a suspect’s home does not by itself mean that the questioning was not custodial in nature.”
Mohamad Safraz Haniff, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 325, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 1530 (1994)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“ 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)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. D. B., Juvenile Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jack Eugene Christiansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jack Eugene Christiansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, (), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
“[A]n appellate court reviews a trial court’s findings of historical fact relating to the circumstances of the interrogation pursuant to the clearly erroneous test but makes *168 an independent review of the trial courts determination regarding custody and the need for a Miranda warning.” (footnote omitted).
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
(citing Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 493-95 , 97 S.Ct.
State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See, -5 (Minn.1998) (considering but rejecting argument for suppression of post-polygraph statements based on Miranda).
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.S.M. 710 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.S.M. 710 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
ANALYSIS “[W]hethér a defendant was ‘in custody’ at the time of an interrogation is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring the appellate court to apply the controlling legal standard to historical facts as determined by the trial court.”
State v. Fitzpatrick 690 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Fitzpatrick 690 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(stating that a mixed question of law and fact requires "the appellate court to apply the controlling legal standard to historical facts as determined by the trial court").
State v. Bergerson 671 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bergerson 671 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(in mixed questions of fact and law, factual findings are reviewed for clear error and legal determinations are reviewed independently).
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003