Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lefthand, 488 N.W.2d 799.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-02 (Minn. 1992); -70 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
See, d 587, 592 (Minn. 1994) (requiring police to record in-custody interrogations); –02 (Minn. 1992) (holding that in-custody interrogation of a formally accused person who is represented by counsel must not proceed prior to notification of counsel or the presence of counsel).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
“Justice is a process, not simply a result.”
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
In the past, when courts have disregarded our rulings, see State v. Lefthand , , 801-02 (Minn. 1992), or when the integrity of the fact-finding process has needed protection, see Pederson v. State , , 164-65 (Minn. 2002), we have exercised our supervisory powers, which include the power to reverse a case prophylactically, see State v. Salitros , , 820 (Minn. 1993).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
We have relied on this “supervisory power” to decide “important evidentiary issues with statewide impact.” Id.; -02 (Minn. 1992).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
We have relied upon the Sixth Amendment to hold that “in- custody interrogation of a formally accused person who is represented by counsel should not proceed prior to notification of counsel or the presence of counsel,” and that 12 statements obtained in violation of this rule are “subject to exclusion at trial.” -02 (Minn. 1992).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
10 Ware contends that the investigator’s –02 (Minn. 1992).
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
“Justice is a process, not simply a result.”
State v. Sahr 812 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2012
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
Where the prosecution persists in skirting our rules and disregarding our admonitions, we are left with no option but to reverse.”
Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
at 138-39 ( , 801 n. 6 (Minn.1992) cert.
State v. Miller 586 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Miller 586 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
-02 (Minn.1992) (citing State v. Renfrew, 280 Minn. 276 , ).
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995