Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587.

155 citing documents.

State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
When doing so, we have relied on our “supervisory power to insure the fair administration of justice.”
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
Specifically, Ortega argues: (1) when they turned off the digital recorder between interviews with Ortega; *100 (2) the district court abused its discretion when it failed to order a Rule 20 competency evaluation at Ortega’s request; (3) the State committed a discovery violation when it failed to disclose Ulrich’s history of violent
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
Accordingly, “safeguarding the rights of criminal defendants is a historical and constitutional function of the judicial branch.” ( State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 150 , ).
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
On direct appeal, Buckingham argued: (1) and without the knowledge and consent of his attorney; (2) the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree murder; (3) due to a mathematical error, his concurrent sentences for attempted first-degree drive-by-shootin
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
In making this objective inquiry, courts should rely primarily on the recording of the interview where, as in this case, a
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
The court of appeals affirmed, holding as a matter of first impression, did not apply to a custodial interrogation that is conducted outside Minnesota.
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
Buckingham appeals his conviction and argues: and were taken without the consent of Buckingham’s attorney; that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of first-degree murder; that he was given a sentence that was over the statutory maximum; and that the prosecutor committed misconduct.
State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
1(a) (2004), arguing that the district court erred by admitting the statements he made to FBI officers in Chicago, Illinois
Bendorf v. Commissioner of Public Safety 727 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2007
Bendorf v. Commissioner of Public Safety 727 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2007
See, (noting that a new rule requiring that tapes be made of all custodial interrogations “will apply prospectively from the date of the filing of this opinion”).
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
(exercising our supervisory-powers to require the recording of custodial interrogations in order to afford “ ‘adequate protection of the accused’s right to counsel, his right against self incrimination and, ultimately, his right to a fair trial,”) (quoting Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156, 1159-60 (Ala
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
we held that "all custodial interrogation including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights, and all questioning shall be electronically recorded where feasible and must be recorded when questioning occurs at a place of detention.” 4 .
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
In Burrell’s case, indicates that Burrell was handcuffed upon entering a police department interrogation room.
State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, to record a noncustodial interview, and the prosecutor did not commit serious misconduct warranting a new trial.
Powell v. Anderson 660 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2003
Powell v. Anderson 660 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 2003
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
and, if so, whether statements *210 and evidence subsequently obtained should be suppressed under a “fruit of the poisonous tree” analysis.
State v. Waddell 655 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2003
State v. Waddell 655 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2003
We note that in Minnesota
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
this court mandated that police record all custodial interrogations, including the Miranda warning, or risk suppression of the evidence obtained.
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
(requiring peace officers to record interrogations).
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Scales v. State 620 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2001
Scales v. State 620 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2001
State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000