Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thaggard, 527 N.W.2d 804.

68 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he state has the burden of proving voluntariness by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In a pretrial hearing at which the defendant seeks to suppress a confession on the basis that it was involuntary, the state bears the burden to prove that the confession was voluntary by a “fair preponderance of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Anthony Compardo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Anthony Compardo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
nt officers have been “legally obliged to tape record not just the so-called ‘formal statement’ by the defendant but the entire custodial interrogation, including the 4 giving of the Miranda warning, the obtaining of a waiver, and that part of the interrogation that [officers] euphemistically refer[] to as the ‘pre-interview.’”
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
at 591 ; (discussing the procedural purpose); (same); -08 (Minn.1995) (same).
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
But, “police must also be allowed to encourage suspects to talk,” and we have upheld empathetic tactics that prod suspects “to speak with [police] and cooperate,” see also Farnsworth, d at 373 (concluding that a statement was voluntary although police placated the defendant by telling him they were just trying to get him “the best help” to ensure that he retained custody of his children); Pilcher, d at 333-34 (listing cases in which confessio
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
found that Clark initiated two of the interviews, see Blom, d at 615 (noting that the defendant initiated the interview); that Clark was not held in poor conditions and was provided with cigarettes, see Ritt, d at 810 (noting that defendant “was allowed to smoke freely” during interview); and that the officers kept the interviews low-key and fairly short, (noting that interview was relatively short).
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
-12 (Minn.1995) (disapproving of police officer’s promise that defendant would probably be given drug treatment if he confessed "up front," but holding that the resulting confession was voluntary because the defendant understood the Miranda warnings; had prior experience with the criminal justice system; was inter
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
Criticized 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
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
(noting that police officers falsely told defendant that a surveillance tape recorded his illegal actions when in fact no such tape existed, and that when police officers realized their mistake they did not inform defendant); (holding that the use of trickery and deception by law enforcement agents is to be considered when determining the admissibility of a subsequent confession); , 598 n. 3 (Minn.1993) (noting that a BCA Agent told appellant that certain evidence linked appellant to the mu
State v. Wilkens 671 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Wilkens 671 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Martinez 657 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Martinez 657 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
808-9 *603 (Minn.1995) (quoting at length the Commentary to § 14.04 of the Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure (1975)).
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-08 (Minn. 1995), the supreme court held that the primary purpose of the recording requirement was not to help the criminal defendants or the state but to assist the court in the resolution of evidentiary disputes and in more accurately determining the underlying facts.
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
State v. Costello 646 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.S.N. 611 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of D.S.N. 611 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Where a defendant seeks to suppress a confession on the grounds that it was involuntary, the state bears the burden to prove the voluntariness of the confession “by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” *814
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
-11 (Minn.1995); Jungbauer, d at 346 .
State v. Tibiatowski 590 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1999
State v. Tibiatowski 590 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1999