State v. Vangstad
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1984, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Pelovsky (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is a pretrial appeal by the state pursuant to R. 29.03, subd. 1, R.Crim.P., from an order of the district court granting a motion by defendant to suppress two statements made by defendant. The district court ruled that the state had failed to meet its burden of proving the first statement was voluntary or the second statement free from the taint of the earlier statement. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 , (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); State v. Sickels, 275 N.W.2d 809 (Minn. 1979); State v. Linder, 268 N.W.2d 734 (Minn. 1978). Holding that the state on appeal has not met its burden of demonstrating error, we affirm. State v. Weber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1977).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.