Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217.

121 citing documents.

State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
State v. Slette 585 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Slette 585 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding that police failure to provide defendant telephone to contact attorney after defendant stated “maybe” he should talk to attorney or alternatively to cease questioning, violated right to counsel and required suppression of statement).
State v. Juarez 572 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1997
State v. Juarez 572 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Nelson 562 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Nelson 562 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
DeWald, d at 502-03 ; (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion where evidence tends to show absence of mistake or accident in charging defendant with commission of an offense where, in similar circumstances involving similar offenses, defendant asserted similar defenses).
State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
711 n. 4 (Minn.1989); , 224 n. 5 (Minn.1988).
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(evidence of other assaultive behavior admissible where defendant claimed self-defense and intoxication); (evidence of other sexually assaultive behavior admissible where defendant claimed intercourse was consensual)
State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
State v. Scales 518 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1994
State v. Champion 517 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Champion 517 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Post 512 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1994
State v. Post 512 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1994
1056, 1059-60 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972)
In Re the Welfare of D.T.N. 508 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of D.T.N. 508 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
State v. Russell 503 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1993
“[0]nce it has been established that the accused has been advised of his rights and has indicated that he understood and appreciated the rights, a statement resulting from subsequent interrogation is admissible absent other evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Pilcher, d at 333 ; Erickson, d at 711 n. 4; , 224 n. 5 (Minn.1988).
State v. Moore 493 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Moore 493 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Having established that constitutional error occurred, the reviewing court must *610 then independently review the record to determine “whether or not an average jury would have changed its verdict had the questioned statement been excluded.”
State v. Brown 488 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Brown 488 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
While this court has never explicitly addressed the effect of an equivocal request to remain silent, as we have with regard to the right to counsel
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hookom 474 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that when a suspect indicates by an equivocal or ambiguous statement, which is subject to a construction that the accused is requesting counsel, all further questioning must stop except that narrow questions designed to “clarify” the accused’s true desires respecting couns
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
-23 (Minn.1988); (fleeting, off-hand comment about future need for attorney not an invocation of right to counsel).
State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
State v. Doughty 472 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1991
1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), requiring the suppression of all of the state’s evidence in this case, including the testimony of the alleged victim and other live witnesses.
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dunkel 466 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Doughty 456 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
This appeal is from a pre-trial order finding a and suppressing all evidence derived from the confession.
State v. Whitehead 458 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Whitehead 458 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(evaluation of evidence for harmlessness).
State v. Moore 458 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1990
State v. Moore 458 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1990
and State v. Malzac, 309 Minn. 300, 306