Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Camacho, 561 N.W.2d 160.

152 citing documents.

Bonga v. State 765 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-76 (Minn.1998); (stating that waiver was valid where defendant’s decision was “unequivocal” and “he was cognizant of the consequences of the decision”); -13 (Minn.1990) (stating that waiver may be valid if the record shows “that [a] defendant was fully aware of the consequences of
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
We will not reverse the district court’s findings that the defendant gave a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the right to remain silent unless “that finding is clearly erroneous.”
State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
is knowing and voluntary.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
1602, 1630 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (holding that statements given voluntarily and without compelling influences are admissible); (“Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is involuntary.”).
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
Despite this inquiry, the standard of review remains whether the district court’s finding is clearly erroneous.” (internal citation omitted).
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
(citing Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 385-86 , 84 S.Ct.
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
State v. Hawanchak 669 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Hawanchak 669 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC. 669 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2003
Severson v. State 636 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2001
Severson v. State 636 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2001
Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 631 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 631 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Khawaja v. State Farm Insurance Companies 631 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Khawaja v. State Farm Insurance Companies 631 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 614 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2000
In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 614 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2000
The rule of criminal procedure cited and relied upon by the court of appeals in its opinion is a
In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 604 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 604 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
(legal questions reviewed de novo) (citing Frost-Benco Elec.
State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
Sullivan v. State 585 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1998
Sullivan v. State 585 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1998
(citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct.
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
State v. Shoen 578 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1998
(citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct.
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
See, (indicating that defendant had had prior contacts with police in which he was informed of his rights); (noting that 15-year-old suspect had been advised of his rights on at least three earlier occasions).
State v. Worthy 569 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Worthy 569 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
ANALYSIS “The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant the right to counsel and, reciprocally, the right of self-representation.” -71 (Minn.1997); see U.S. Const. amends.
State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997