State v. Morales-Mulato
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STONEBURNER, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction of and sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the district court erred by (1) failing to suppress his custodial statement as a sanction for violation of his rights under article 36 of the Vienna Convention; (2) allowing the CornerHouse interviewer to opine that, based on an. interview, the complainant had been sexually abused; and (3) imposing an upward sentencing departure. In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant additionally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
FACTS
Appell…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Sanchez-Llamas v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Antoine v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. ObetaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- State v. AdellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008