CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether defendant’s statements should not have been suppressed
Defendant was convicted of 1st degree premeditated murder, 1st degree domestic abuse murder, and 2nd degree intentional murder. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting statement he made during police interrogation, arguing he invoked his right to remain silent and did not waive his Miranda rights.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statement on the grounds that (1) he did not unambiguously or unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent and he implicitly waived his Miranda rights.
State v. Balandin, A19-0625, Scott County.
Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.