Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Day, 619 N.W.2d 745.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
9 in the circumstances would understan d the statement to be an invocation of the right to remain silent.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In order to effectively invoke Miranda rights, “an unambiguous and unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent is required.”
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Once implicated, the defendant’s right to remain silent must be scrupulously honored and the interrogation must cease.” (citation and quotations omitted).
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
A suspect must state his intention to remain silent “sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be an invocation of the right to remain silent.”
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
The “proper inquiry is whether the suspect articulated his desire to remain silent sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be an invocation of the right to remain silent.”
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
We have also allowed photographs showing that “ ‘[t]he victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life.’ ” ().
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
Regarding review for harmless error, a finding of constitutional error does not require a new trial if the state can show that the verdict actually rendered was “surely unattributable to the error”'— that is, “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” -92 (Minn.1997).
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 804-05 (finding unequivocal and unambiguous invocation of right to counsel when accused stated, “Can I have a drink of water and then lock me up — I think we really should have an attorney.”); (finding unequivocal and unambiguous invocation of right to remain silent when accused stated, “Said I don’t want to tell you guys anything to say about me in court.”).
State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
In deciding this issue, the question we must answer is “ ‘[w]hat effect did the jury’s hearing [the defendant’s] statement ⅜ ⅜ * actually have on the guilty verdict rendered?’ ” ().