Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661.
- State of Minnesota v. Marc Jonathan Knotz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Kyle Anthony Compardo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Anthony Compardo
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Accordingly, a Scales violation is not substantial “[i]f it is undisputed that the Miranda warning was administered, or that the accused waived his or her right to remain silent” because in such a case “the lack of a recording creates no prejudice to the accused.” Id.; see also Buckingham, d at 69; -75 (Minn. 1998); Williams, d at 289.
- 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. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
-
State v. Ortega
813 N.W.2d 86
Minn. 2012
interpreted” the suspect’s statement in determining whether the suspect reinitiated discussions with police); (holding that the suspect initiated further questioning when, after being told that he had to waive his right to counsel before speaking with investigators, the suspect replied, “I’d like to exercise that option”).
- State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
- State v. Flowers 788 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2010
- State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
-
State v. Chavarria-Cruz
784 N.W.2d 355
Minn. 2010
for the proposition that the determination of "whether an accused invoked his right to counsel” is a factual question.
- State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
- State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. McCurry
770 N.W.2d 553
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-76 (Minn.1998) (affirming district court’s denial of mistrial motion where it immediately gave curative instruction following witness’s testimony that appellant “had past felonies” and took extra steps to ensure witnesses would not discuss past convictions).
- Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
- State v. Gouleed 720 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 2006
- 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
- State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
- State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
- State v. Inman 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
- State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
-
State v. Blom
682 N.W.2d 578
Minn. 2004
(“Although appellate courts review the presence or absence of historical facts for clear error, the surrounding circumstances relevant to a Sixth Amendment determination are reviewed de novo.”); (stating that an appellate court reviews a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, but “makes an independent review * * ⅜ of the district court’s determination regarding custody and the necessity of a Miranda warning”).
- Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
- State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
- State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. Jarvis
649 N.W.2d 186
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 591 (citation omitted); (reiterating rationale for Scales decision was to prevent factual disputes about existence and context of Miranda warnings and any ensuing waiver of rights).
- State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
- State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
- In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
In Re the Welfare of R.J.E.
630 N.W.2d 457
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-3 (Minn.1998) (citation omitted); (citation omitted); (“The test is not whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe they were not free to leave, but whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe they were in police custody of the
- State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
State v. Marchbanks
632 N.W.2d 725
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-76 (Minn.1998) (no abuse of discretion where counsel and court minimized potential harm from witness’ unexpected reference to defendant’s past felonies through jury and witness instructions).
- State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
State v. Walthers
620 N.W.2d 727
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(allowing evidence that the defendant sexually assaulted the victim in a similar manner six months after the charged incident to rebut defendant’s allegation that the victim fabricated the incident); -37 (Minn.1998) (allowing evidence of defendant’s prior assault of the victim to show motive and intent to kill her); (allowing evidence of a prior bad act to show the strained relationship between defendant and his mother to show motive for killing her); (allowing evidence of' defendant’s prior att
- State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
- State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
- In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
In Re the Welfare of G.S.P.
610 N.W.2d 651
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-5 (Minn.1998); -71 (Minn.1998).
- State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
- State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
- State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
- State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999