State v. Needham
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
KEITH, Chief Justice.
The defendant is charged with arson. The issue on this pretrial state’s appeal is whether the trial court was justified in suppressing defendant’s confession pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The trial court reasoned that suppression was required because the state, although eliciting testimony at the omnibus hearing that a “Miranda warning” was read to the defendant before the defendant was questioned, failed to elicit specific testimony as to the contents of the warning. The court of appeals affirmed. We reverse the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State v. CrislerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. BalducCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. Pederson-MaxwellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. GoebelCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi FarahCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- State v. LemmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.