DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ngoc Van Vu, 339 N.W.2d 892.

27 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    are advised to comply with the statutory requirements” for language services); d 892, 898 (Minn. 1983) (stating that “the police and the [district] court would be wise to engage an interpreter before interrogation so that this issue need nev er arise again in Minnesota”).
  • State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
    (stating that prudent police investigators should comply with the statutory requirements for language services); Mitjans, d at 831 (stating that “[i]n the future, prudent police investigators * * * are advised to comply with the statutory requirements” for language services); (stating that “the police and the trial court would be wise to engage an interpreter before interrogation so that this issue need never arise again in Minnesota”).
  • State v. Marin 541 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Marin 541 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    2, which requires procurement of a “qualified” interpreter); -98 (Minn.1983) (affirming the trial court’s admission of a statement made to police despite the defendant’s assertion that he could not validly waive his Miranda rights because of claimed language difficulties).
  • State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Garceau 370 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Garceau 370 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Packard 366 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Packard 366 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: Before the state can introduce incriminating statements made by a defendant during custodial interrogation, it has the burden of proving that defendant “knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed co
  • Loftus v. State 357 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Loftus v. State 357 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Yokoyama v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Yokoyama v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Although making an interpreter available when possible is desirable, finding an interpreter is not absolutely necessary and should not "interfere with the evidence-gathering purposes of the implied consent statute."
  • State v. Stokes 354 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Stokes 354 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Hanson v. State 345 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Hanson v. State 345 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    However, the standard appellant advances is one used when the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is entirely circumstantial, or when there is little direct evidence.