Court Opinion

ID: 9574950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:09:54.882706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:31.530717
License: Public Domain

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. While I do not disagree with the majority’s analysis of the Miranda issue, we should not even reach this issue because the state has not sustained its burden of showing how the trial court’s suppression of Scott’s confession will critically impact the outcome of trial.
I do not agree that State v. Zanter changed the sequence in which we would address pretrial suppression issues. State v. Zanter, 585 N.W.2d 624 (Minn.1995), and State v. Edrozo, 578 N.W.2d 719 (Minn.1998), simply restated what has always been the law, and the law we should follow today.
The majority has found facts as to the impact of the suppressive confession and then has done what should be the job of the state: argued the critical impact of t hose facts.
I would dismiss the appeal and remand for trial.