Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277.

84 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Although Weisen asserts that the officer’s statement that a body scanner would find anything on her person was coercive, the officer’s statement was “not the kind of statement[] that would make an innocent person confess.”
State of Minnesota v. Charlene Marie Waldron Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Charlene Marie Waldron Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that the voluntariness requirement is separate from the Miranda requirement).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
But “nothing short of an unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent will be sufficient to implicate Miranda’s protections.” see also Berghuis v. Thompkins , 560 U.S. 370, 381 ( 2010) (stating that under the federal constitution, the Miranda rights—including the right to r emain silent —must be unambiguously and unequivocally invoked before police must cease questioning).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State v. Fox , (“If the police fully advise an accused of his Miranda rights, and the accused indicates that he understands his rights and nevertheless gives an incriminating statement, the state is deemed to have met its burden of proving that the accused knowingly and intelligently waived his rights.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that defendant’s behavior of standing up to interrogators “evinces his ability to withstand pressure”).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ryan Williams 862 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ryan Williams 862 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Anthony Compardo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Anthony Compardo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
State v. Ortega 798 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 2011
321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975)
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Riley, d at 526 ; (“[I]n-stead of being intimidated during his interrogation, Williams’s behavior of standing up to the detectives evinces his ability to withstand pressure.”).
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
in which we identified as relevant the defendant’s extensive criminal background and concomitant experience in the criminal justice system; in which we noted that although the defendant was on prescription drugs, there was no evidence that he was ma
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Because exclusion of an involuntary statement is intended to deter improper police interrogation, a finding of coercive police activity is a prerequisite to concluding that a statement was involuntary
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
(stating that “the rationale underlying the recording requirement is to avoid factual disputes underlying an accused’s claims that the police violated his constitutional rights”).
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thul v. State 657 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(reviewing court accepts factual findings unless clearly erroneous).
State v. Martinez 657 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Martinez 657 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
); (holding that officer’s false statement to suspect during interrogation did not make confession involuntary where interrogating officers used no threats or intimidation, defendant had experience in criminal-justice system, and defendant was of sufficient age and intelligence to understand situation in which he found himself); (stating that trustworthiness of confession should not always be discounted because investigative officers might have made discursive or imprecise statements to defendan
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-17 (Minn.1998); (Miranda warning also designed to protect defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel).
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hendry 636 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A district “court’s factual findings are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review[.j”
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001