Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Staats, 658 N.W.2d 207.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. D. B., Juvenile Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
-68 (Minn.2013); -95 (Minn.2006)
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gordon Wurtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gordon Wurtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The supreme court summarized factors indicating custody and lack of custody, –12 (Minn. 2003), and reiterated them in Flowers, d at 129.
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
We grant “ ‘considerable, but not unlimited, deference to a trial court’s fact-specific resolution of such an issue when the proper legal standard is applied.’ ” ().
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
Factors indicative of custody include (1) the police interviewing the suspect’s at the police station; (2) the suspect being told he or she is a prime suspect in a crime; (3) the police restraining the suspects freedom of movement; (4) the suspect making a significantly incriminating statement; (5) the presence of multiple officers; and (6) “a gun pointing at the suspect.”
State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
However, we will make an independent determination of whether a suspect was in custody, whether the State has shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence that a defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights, and whether a statement was given voluntarily
State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004